Giles v. Giles
Decision Date | 27 February 1936 |
Citation | 293 Mass. 495,200 N.E. 378 |
Parties | GILES v. GILES. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Suit in equity by Charles E. Giles against Julia G. Giles, who filed a cross-bill or counterclaim. From a final decree allowing the relief prayed in the cross-bill or counterclaim and dismissing plaintiff's bill after rescript, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Broadhurst, Judge.
C. S. Walkup, Jr., of Boston, for appellant.
J. M. Raymond, of Boston, for appellee.
The plaintiff brought this suit in equity against the defendant, who was then his wife, seeking to recover certain of his personal property alleged to have been taken by her. By an amended answer the defendant alleged by way of cross bill or counterclaim that prior to the marriage she lent the plaintiff $10,000, which had never been repaid. At that trial the issue as to the personal property of the plaintiff was adjudicated. It was held that the defendant could not recover against the plaintiff under her amended answer because of coverture. Giles v. Giles, 279 Mass. 284, 181 N.E. 176.
After rescript but before the entry of any final decree after rescript, the defendant filed a third amendment to her answer setting up divorce between the parties and alleging that coverture is no longer a bar to her counterclaim and praying for relief. The plaintiff answered setting up among other matters that the defendant now has a complete remedy at law. The case then came on for hearing before the same judge who had heard the case at its earlier stage in 1931. At this hearing it appeared that the parties had become divorced. Giles v. Giles, 279 Mass. 469, 181 N.E. 505. Accordingly there is no longer any bar of coverture to prevent the defendant from maintaining her claim for $10,000 lent by her to him. The trial judge made these findings:
The appeal of the plaintiff from a final decree entered in conformity to this order brings the case here.
The finding of the trial judge that at the earlier hearing before him there was a full and complete hearing on the question of the loan from the defendant to the plaintiff must be accepted as final. The evidence is not reported. The only question raised by the appeal on this point is whether that conclusion is necessarily inconsistent with subsidiary findings. Tait v. Downey, 267 Mass. 422, 425, 166 N.E. 857;Columbian Insecticide Co. v. Driscoll, 271 Mass. 74, 77, 170 N.E. 804;Peabody v. Dymsza, 280 Mass. 341, 343, 182 N.E. 580;Milne v. Walsh, 285 Mass. 151, 188 N.E. 624. It is manifest that there is no such inconsistency in the case at bar. The hearing on this branch of the case could only have related to the question whether there was such loan as matter of fact. The question of law on which the decision finally turned, namely, that the defendant could not prevail because of coverture, required no evidence. Confessedly the parties were then husband and wife.
The defence of the plaintiff that this was not cognizable in equity ought to have been made when the amendment to the answer was offered by the defendant. Dearth v. Hide & Leather National Bank, 100 Mass. 540, 543. In any event, the point should have been raised seasonably by demurrer or answer. Edgett v. Palmer, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bell v. Treasurer of Cambridge
...Light Co., 220 Mass. 1, 107 N.E. 426, Ann.Cas.1917A, 145;Hotel & Railroad News Co. v. Clark, 243 Mass. 317, 137 N.E. 534;Giles v. Giles, 293 Mass. 495, 200 N.E. 378;Ogens v. Northern Industrial Chemical Co., 304 Mass. 401, 24 N.E.2d 1, 126 A.L.R. 280. It could hardly be supposed that it was......
-
MacPherson v. Boston Edison Co.
...v. Chapin National Bank, 251 Mass. 401, 408-409, 146 N.E. 666; Baskes v. Cushing, 270 Mass. 230, 232, 170 N.E. 42; Giles v. Giles, 293 Mass. 495, 498, 200 N.E. 378) even though, upon an affirmative showing in the bill that the statutory procedure is inadequate, there would be concurrent jur......
-
Callow v. Thomas
...lent to him before the marriage. But after the parties had been divorced it was held that the suit could be maintained. Giles v. Giles, 293 Mass. 495, 200 N.E. 378. The right to sue was merely suspended during coverture. In Charney v. Charney, 316 Mass. 580, 55 N.E.2d 917, it was held that ......
-
Zwick v. Goldberg
...of some personal incapacity is prevented from prosecuting an action until such an impairment is removed. It was held in Giles v. Giles, 293 Mass. 499, 200 N.E. 378, which was a bill in equity brought by a husband against his wife, that she could not maintain a counterclaim for money lent by......