Giles v. Giles

Decision Date23 May 1932
PartiesGILES v. GILES.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Broadhurst, Judge.

Suit by Charles E. Giles against Julia Giles, wherein defendant filed a cross-bill. From an order for final decree and final decree, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

J. M. Raymond, of Boston, for appellant.

J. B. Sly, of Boston, for appellee.

CROSBY, J.

This is a suit in equity brought by the plaintiff against his wife to recover certain personal property, which, he alleges, belongs to him and had been concealed by the defendant so that the plaintiff was without an adequate remedy at law. The answer as amended denied the allegations of the bill, and by way of a cross bill seeks to recover two sums of $5,000 each, which were lent by the defendant to the plaintiff before their marriage.

The trial judge found that they were married on September 27, 1927, and lived together in this commonwealth until December 8, 1930, when they separated, and have since lived apart but have not been divorced. The judge made the further finding that the plaintiff is not entitled to the personal property described in the bill. He found that on August 6, 1927, and again on August 30, 1927, the defendant lent these two sums to the plaintiff on his promise to repay them; that an action at law brought by Mrs. Giles against her husband to recover the loans had been abated on his plea on the ground that she was not entitled to maintain such action against her husband. In her answer in the present suit the defendant, among other grounds for relief, asks that his debt to her be established. The judge ruled that she was not entitled to recover under her answer, although she might assign her claim to a third person who could maintain an action thereon at her request, or she could maintain an action against his estate if she survived him, or if the disability of coverture were removed by divorce, she could maintain an action at law against him. Accordingly, a final decree was ordered to be entered dismissing the bill, and the defendant's counter-claim without prejudice, with costs to neither party. The defendant appealed from this order and from the final decree.

[6] It is settled in this commonwealth that the subsequent marriage of the parties did not extinguish the debt or render it void. MacKeown v. Lacey, 200 Mass. 437, 86 N. E. 799,21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 683,16 Ann. Cas. 220;Crosby v. Clem, 209 Mass. 193, 95 N. E. 297;Delval v. Gagnon, 213 Mass. 203, 99 N. E. 1095. This principle of law was recognized by the trial judge by his ruling that the claim could be assigned to a third person who could maintain an action thereon, or that the defendant could maintain an action thereon against her husband's estate, or that she could maintain an action against him if they were separated by divorce. It was said in Crosby v. Clem, supra, at page 194 of 209 Mass., 95 N. E. 297: ‘It is settled in this commonwealth that even under recent statutes a husband cannot contract directly with his wife. But it has been repeatedly decided that since the removal of the common-law disabilities of a wife there is nothing in law to prevent the husband from executing and delivering to a third person a valid note, mortgage or security for money advanced by her to the husband or for his benefit.’ This general rule remains in force except in cases where some special ground for equitablerelief has been established. The exceptions to the general rule are set forth in Gahm v. Gahm, 243 Mass. 374, at page 376, 137 N. E. 876, where it was said that ‘There is jurisdiction in equity over suits between husband and wife to secure her separate property, to prevent fraud, to relieve from coercion, to enforce trusts and establish other conflicting rights concerning property.’ In this connection Frankel v. Frankel, 173 Mass. 214, 53 N. E. 398,73 Am. St. Rep. 266, and other cases were cited. As to those citations it was further said: ‘But none of these decisions afford ground for the contention that suit can be maintained between husband and wife on a simple contract between them for the payment of money without some circumstance raising equitable considerations.’ The facts found in the present case failed to establish any of the special grounds for equitable relief enumerated in Gahm v. Gahm, supra. There was no evidence or finding to indicate fraud or coercion exercised by the plaintiff to obtain the loan, and the judge expressly found that the plaintiff...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Callow v. Thomas
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • April 1, 1948
    ...prohibiting, with certain exceptions, legal proceedings between husband and wife. See G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 209, § 6. Thus in Giles v. Giles, 279 Mass. 284, 181 N.E. 176, it was held that a wife could not maintain a suit in equity against her husband to recover money lent to him before the marri......
  • Zwick v. Goldberg
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • September 16, 1939
    ...of the common law that one spouse cannot sue the other in an action at law. Golder v. Golder, 235 Mass. 261, 126 N.E. 382;Giles v. Giles, 279 Mass. 284, 181 N.E. 176. We assume that this principle applies where one spouse is acting only in a representative capacity. It has been held that a ......
  • Blumenthal v. Blumenthal
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • May 29, 1939
    ...in any State that did not have a court empowered to enforce it. That decision has been affirmed in a subsequent case. Giles v. Giles, 279 Mass. 284, 181 N.E. 176; Id., Mass., 200 N.E. 378. If a remedy is to be provided for those in the situation of the plaintiff, then relief must be sought ......
  • Emerson v. Deming
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • December 6, 1939
    ...to her husband, she could not maintain any action against him to recover it. Gahm v. Gahm, 243 Mass. 374, 137 N.E. 876;Giles v. Giles, 279 Mass. 284, 181 N.E. 176. The defendant could not be required to pay her the amount of her husband's indebtedness to her and he was under no obligation t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT