Gardner v. Gardner

• Decision Date: 25 June 1892
• Parties: GARDNER v. GARDNER.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

24 A. 785

17 R.I. 751

GARDNER

v. GARDNER.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 25, 1892.

Bill by Dorcas B. Gardner against Susan C. Gardner to set aside conveyances as fraudulent and for other relief. Respondent demurred to the bill. Demurrer overruled.

Albert B. Crafts, for complainant.

Charles Perrin, for respondent.

MATTESON, C. J. The complainant brought her action at law against the respondent, as administratrix on the estate of Jabez C. Gardner, deceased, on a claim against him for money expended and services rendered in his household prior to his death. The action was entered at the September terra, 1885, of this court, and is still pending. The defendant, in answer to the suit, pleaded—First, the statute of limitations; second,that she had fully administered the estate of the deceased, except as to goods and chattels of the value of $191.26; and, third, the general issue. The plaintiff replied to the first two pleas, and issue has been joined upon them, and also upon the third plea. September 5, 1885, after the bringing of the suit, the estate of the deceased was represented insolvent, and the probate court of Westerly thereupon appointed commissioners on the estate, to receive and examine the claims of creditors, and allowed six months for the presentation of claims to the commissioners. The commissioners duly qualified and rendered their report to the court, which was received and allowed, April 5, 1886. The plaintiff did not present her claim to the commissioners, and it wag therefore neither allowed nor disallowed nor mentioned in their report. In this state of affairs the complainant filed this bill in aid of her suit at law, and alleges in it, among other things, that she is a creditor of the estate of the deceased, and the nature of her claim; that she is a daughter of the deceased, whose first wife was her mother; that after the decease of her mother the said Jabez married the respondent; that October 1, 1881, said Jabez being weak and of unsound mind, and being coerced by the respondent, then his wife, and by reason of undue influence exercised upon him by her, conveyed to one Solomon Burdick certain real estate, described in the bill, of the value of $1,500, for the purpose of having it conveyed to her, and that said Burdick. on October 12, 1881, conveyed the same to her; that on October 11, 1881, the said Jabez, being in the condition of mind stated, and being coerced and unduly influenced by the respondent, transferred to her certain savings bank deposits in the bill mentioned, aggregating $1,006; that the complainant was wholy ignorant of such conveyances and transfers until after the decease of her father, and that they were made upon no other consideration than that of love and affection of the said Jabez for the respondent; that the real estate so conveyed, and the savings bank deposits so transferred, comprised all of the estate of the deceased, except that embraced in the inventory returned by the respondent, as administratrix, amounting to $305.71; that the inventory so returned did not include the savings bank deposits so transferred. The bill avers that said conveyances and transfers are null and void as against the complainant, and prays, substantially, that the respondent may be decreed to inventory the deposits in the savings banks, or the money collected therefrom in her possession and control, as part of the estate of the deceased, so that the same and said real estate may be made subject to any judgment that the complainant shall recover in her action at law, or may be applied to the payment of such judgment in some proper manner, and that the conveyances of the real estate aforesaid may be declared null and void as against such judgment; that the respondent maybe enjoined from pressing said action at law to trial until the determination of this suit; and for general relief.

The respondent demurs to the bill. She contends that the complainant should have discontinued her action at law when the estate was represented insolvent, and commissioners had been appointed to receive and examine claims of creditors, and that had she done so, and her claim been wholly or in part disallowed, she could have had it determined at common law, as provided by Pub. St. R. I. c. 186, § 12; that, having failed so to do, equity will not grant her relief; that a court of equity is not a proper forum to try the question of the value of the services which largely constitute the complainant's claim; that the rule is well established that a creditor, in order to reach equitable assets, must first obtain a judgment at law. Pub. St. R. I. c. 186, § 18, provides that "all actions brought against any executor or administrator before the estate is represented insolvent * * * shall be...