Holmes v. Winchester
| Decision Date | 28 June 1882 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Francis M. Holmes & others v. Sarah W. Winchester |
Suffolk. Bill in equity, filed January 8, 1881, by the assignees in insolvency of George C. Winchester, to compel the transfer of 250 shares of the stock of the Ashburnham Railroad Company, conveyed by Winchester to the defendant his wife. Hearing before Field, J., who found the following facts:
On July 1, 1878, George C. Winchester executed and delivered to certain persons, as trustees, a mortgage upon land in Ashburnham, in which mortgage the defendant joined, releasing dower.
At the time of this conveyance, George C. Winchester was the owner of all the stock of the Ashburnham Railroad Company, which consisted of 300 shares; and, in consideration of the release of dower by the defendant, he orally promised and agreed to give her said 300 shares of stock, and also to pay her the sum of $ 10,000 in cash as compensation therefor, which was only a reasonable compensation for her release of dower.
In June 1879, George C. Winchester was insolvent, and knew that he was insolvent. Proceedings in insolvency were instituted against him in September 1879, and the plaintiffs were duly appointed his assignees. With a view of performing his said promise and agreement with the defendant, which he had neglected to this time to perform, he, in June 1879, and when he knew he was insolvent, and with a view of preventing said stock and the property therein from coming to his assignees in insolvency, caused 250 shares of said stock to be transferred to the defendant. At the time of this transfer the defendant had reasonable cause to believe that her husband was insolvent, and that he made the transfer with the view of preventing said property from coming to his assignees in insolvency; and such transfer was in fraud of the laws relating to insolvency.
Upon these facts, the judge ruled that the defendant had no right to retain the stock as against the plaintiffs; entered a decree, ordering her to transfer the same to them; and, at her request, reported the case for the determination of the full court.
Bill dismissed.
G. F Verry & F. A. Gaskill, for the defendant.
S. Hoar, for the plaintiffs.
A wife's release of dower in her husband's lands, given at his request and for his benefit, is a valuable consideration for a conveyance by him to her of property which is no more than a fair equivalent. Bullard v. Briggs, 7 Pick. 533. Sykes v. Chadwick, 85 U.S. 141, 18 Wall. 141, 21 L.Ed. 824. Garlick v. Strong, 3 Paige 440. It is in this respect like a conveyance of her separate property for his benefit and at his request. In consideration of such a release, the husband in this case agreed to give her the specific shares in question, and more, and also a sum of money. It must be presumed, if the fact is important, that he was solvent at the time; and that, in releasing her dower and accepting his promise for specific reimbursement, she acted in good faith.
In equity, for many purposes, a husband and wife are regarded as distinct persons, and capable of contracting with each other and it violates no principle of equity to hold the husband's contract in this case valid and enforceable by her. 2 Kent Com. 164, 166, 174. Story Eq. Jur. §§ 1372, 1373, 1377 a. Wallingsford v. Allen, 10 Peters 583, 594. Arundell v. Phipps, 10 Ves. 139. The circumstance that no trustee was appointed does not destroy the contract. A husband may be a trustee for his wife, either under an express, or implied, or resulting trust. Turner v. Nye, 7 Allen 176, 181. Hayward v. Cain, 110 Mass. 273. Walker v. Walker, 76 U.S. 743, 9 Wall. 743, 19 L.Ed. 814. The agreement was to convey to her all the shares of the corporation. A bill in equity will lie to enforce specific performance of such an agreement. Todd v. Taft, 7 Allen 371. Duncuft v. Albrecht, 12 Sim. 189. Cheale v. Kenward, 3 DeG. & J. 27...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Hammond
... ... [98 F. 861] ... the bankrupt's creditors passes to his assignee ... Audenried v. Betteley, 5 Allen, 382; Holmes v ... Winchester, 133 Mass. 140; Sibley v. Bank, Id ... 515; Low v. Welch, 139 Mass. 33, 29 N.E. 216. Upon ... these cases the contention ... ...
-
Atkins v. Atkins
...403, 412, 36 N. E. 93; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. (13th Ed.) § 1372; Atlantic National Bank v. Tavener, 130 Mass. 407, 409;Holmes v. Winchester, 133 Mass. 140, 141; Lombard v. Morse, ubi supra; Hunt v. Johnson, 44 N. Y. 27, 4 Am. Rep. 631. The fact that he was acting in a representative capacity cre......
-
Atkins v. Atkins
...148 Ill. 403, 412, 36 N.E. 93; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. (13th Ed.) § 1372; Atlantic National Bank v. Tavener, 130 Mass. 407, 409; Holmes v. Winchester, 133 Mass. 140, 141; Lombard v. Morse, ubi supra; Hunt v. Johnson, N.Y. 27, 4 Am. Rep. 631. The fact that he was acting in a representative capacit......
-
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Hale
...v. Riggs, 148 Ill. 403, 412, 36 N. E. 93; Going v. Orns, 8 Kan. 85; Garwood v. Garwood, 56 N. J. Eq. 265, 38 A. 954. Also see Holmes v. Winchester, 133 Mass. 140, Atlantic National Bank v. Tavener, 130 Mass. 407, Lombard v. Morse, 155 Mass. 136, 29 N. E. 205, 14 L. R. A. 273, Frankel v. Fra......