Grygiel v. Grygiel, 8448.

• Decision Date: 18 June 1942
• Docket Number: No. 8448.,8448.
• Citation: 26 A.2d 743
• Parties: GRYGIEL v. GRYGIEL.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

26 A.2d 743

GRYGIEL

v. GRYGIEL.

No. 8448.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 18, 1942.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Kent County; Philip C. Joslin, Judge.

Assumpsit by John J. Grygiel, as administrator c. t. a. of the estate of Albert Grygiel, deceased against Peter F. Grygiel to recover money allegedly belonging to deceased. On defendant's exceptions to denial of motion for new trial after verdict for plaintiff and to other rulings made in the course of the trial.

Exceptions overruled and case remitted for entry of judgment on the verdict.

See, also, 64 R.I. 444, 13 A.2d 235.

Patrick H. Quinn and George Roche, both of Providence, for plaintiff.

Raoul Archambault, of Providence, for defendant.

FLYNN, Chief Justice.

This action in assumpsit was brought by the plaintiff as administrator c. t. a. of the estate of Albert Grygiel, deceased, to recover the sum of $500 alleged to be an asset of that estate. After a jury in the superior court rendered a verdict for the plaintiff, the trial justice denied defendant's motion for a new trial. The case is here on defendant's exceptions to that and other rulings made in the course of the trial.

The transcript discloses the following facts. Plaintiff and defendant are brothers, being sons of Albert Grygiel, deceased. The father during his lifetime owned a savings account in the Centreville Savings Bank that stood in his own name. On May 28, 1935 he withdrew $500 therefrom and there is no direct evidence as to what he did with this money. However, eight days later, on June 5, 1935, a new account was opened in the same bank by the defendant under the form "Albert Grygiel, Peter F. Grygiel, Trustee". The initial deposit was $300 and on August 12, 1935 a further deposit therein of $200 was made by defendant. Apart from addition of dividends, there was no further deposit in that account.

On April 20, 1936 the father visited one of his daughters, Mrs. Julia M. Skraba, who was ill in a hospital in Providence. The latter, upon seeing certain paid bills fall from her father's pocket, was prompted to inquire concerning some of his affairs. Thereupon the father disclosed that he had given some money to the defendant for the purpose of paying bills and that he also had loaned him some money. The amount thereof was not then or at any time disclosed in evidence. The father died suddenly on his way home from that visit.

On the next morning, April 21, 1936, defendant went to the bank early and withdrew the entire $500 from the account standing in the names "Albert Grygiel, Peter F. Grygiel, Trustee"; and he then deposited it in another account which he had opened in the names of "Annette Grygiel, Peter F. Grygiel, Trustee", Annette being the wife of the defendant. The defendant had several other accounts in that bank which he had opened and carried in the names of certain of his children and himself as trustee, all following the form as above set forth.

A year or two later defendant's sister, Mrs. Skraba, engaged an attorney to investigate her father's account in view of his disclosures to her and then learned for the first time of defendant's withdrawal of the $500 from that account. Defendant visited her upon her request, and she told him of the statements made by their father to her while at the hospital and also notified him of what her attorney had discovered. Defendant then and at all times denied receiving any such loan or any amounts from his father and asserted that all the money in that account was his own. He refused to turn it over to plaintiff who then brought this action. At the trial defendant explained that he kept the different accounts in the form described in order to protect him in the event of automobile accident claims involving his car while it might be driven without his permission and while not covered by his own insurance. He did not explain why, in view of these other accounts, it was necessary to open an account in his father's name. There was other evidence 'which had some bearing upon the credibility of the respective witnesses.

The defendant contends that the admission, over objection, of certain evidence referred to in his first, second, third and fifth exceptions was erroneous in each instance. We find no exception in the transcript corresponding to the second exception appearing in his bill of exceptions. As to the others just mentioned, we have examined the evidence and we cannot say that any of the court's rulings thereon resulted in prejudicial error. While the materiality of most of this evidence may be questionable, it was not entirely...