Frankel v. Frankel

• Decision Date: 07 April 1899
• Parties: FRANKEL v. FRANKEL.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

173 Mass. 214

53 N.E. 398

FRANKEL v. FRANKEL.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

April 7, 1899

COUNSEL

Gargan & Keating, for appellant.

Lourie & Lourie, for appellee.

OPINION

MORTON J.

The property which the plaintiff seeks to recover is her separate property, and was obtained from her as the court has found by the fraud and coercion of her husband. She cannot maintain an action at law against him (Pub.St. c. 147,§ 7), and unless this bill can be maintained, she will be without a remedy. That of itself is not a sufficient reason for a decree in her favor, but we think that she is entitled to the relief which she seeks. The section referred to above does not forbid suits between husband and wife, but simply provides that it shall not be construed to authorize them. It would seem, therefore, that equitable remedies may be availed of, as before, between husband and wife, in cases where they apply. See Butler v. Butler, 16 Q.B.Div. 374. Indeed, it would be strange, if, in the matter of equitable remedies, the rights of married women had been restricted when in other respects they have been so much enlarged. Suits between husband and wife in respect to her separate estate, or matters growing out of antenuptial or postnuptial contracts, or marriage settlements, or property held in trust for the wife's benefit, form a well-established head of equitable jurisdiction. Ayer v. Ayer, 16 Pick. 327; Scott v. Rand, 115 Mass. 104; Fowle v. Torrey, 135 Mass. 93; Butler v. Butler, supra; Healey v. Healey, 48 N.J.Eq. 239, 21 A. 299; 2 Story, Eq.Jur. (10th Ed.) 1366 et seq. In the present case the judge may have found, and we assume that he did find, that the defendant received the money from his wife in trust to put it in a bank for her. If he had invested it in land in his own name, he would have held the title for her. It did not alter the case that, instead, he put the money in bank in his own name. In Lombard v. Morse, 155 Mass. 136, 29 N.E. 205, it was held that a husband could maintain a bill in equity against his wife to recover property which she had obtained from him by fraud shortly before, and in contemplation of, marriage. And in Fry v. Fry, 7 Paige, 461, referred to in Lombard v. Morse, supra, a conveyance from the wife to the husband after marriage was set aside on the ground that it was improperly obtained by him, by taking advantage of her ignorance of her rights, and her confidence in him. See, also, Stiles v. Stiles, 14 Mich. 72, also referred to in Lombard v. Morse, supra.

...