Huntress v. Hanley

• Decision Date: 20 April 1907
• Citation: 195 Mass. 236,80 N.E. 946
• Parties: HUNTRESS et al. v. HANLEY et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

195 Mass. 236

80 N.E. 946

HUNTRESS et al. v. HANLEY et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

April 20, 1907

COUNSEL

Lee M. Friedman, Percy A. Atherton, and Morse & Friedman, for appellant.

Eugene D. Flanigan, for appellee Mary A. Hanley.

OPINION

RUGG J.

The plaintiffs are trustees under the will of Patrick T. Hanley late of Boston. They bring this bill of interpleader for instrucions as to the persons to whom to pay a portion of the residuum held under the terms of said will. Paragraph (h) of clause 10 of the will authorized the trustees to terminate the trust therein created as to the share of any of the beneficiaries, and the plaintiffs have exercised that power by terminating the trust so far as it relates to the interests of Dudley P. Hanley. Mary A. Hanley claims this entire share by virtue of an assignment dated April 18, 1899. Thomas Allen claims to be paid out of the fund $10,000 with interest, by virtue of an assignment to him dated July 7 1900, and James C. McEachen claims certain sums by virtue of an assignment to him, dated August 8, 1902. One Skinner also claimed an interest in the fund by virtue of another assignment, but no question arises respecting his claim, for the reason that the master found against it and no appeal has been entered from a decree adverse to his contention.

The case was referred to a master, who found, so far as material issues now raised, the following facts:

Mary A. Hanley, whose maiden name was Donahue, became acquainted with Dudley P. Hanley in 1885. This acquaintance continued until 1897, when they became engaged to be married. No definite time was then fixed for the marriage, and Miss Donahue, who was a nurse, declined to fix any time until Dudley's circumstances should become such that he could support her without the assistance of her professional income. The testator died March 31, 1899, and at his funeral Dudley learned the terms of the will. He returned to New York on April 9, 1899, and soon after offered orally to give Miss Donahue an assignment of his interest in his father's estate; if she would marry him. An assignment was then drafted and on April 18, 1899, it was executed and delivered to Miss Donahue. This assignment was never recorded and no notice of its existence was given to the trustees until March, 1904. The master found 'that at the time said assignment was executed it was fully understood and agreed between Hanley and Miss Donahue, that such assignment was given in exchange for and in consideration of Miss Donahue's promise to marry Hanley.' He did not find that Hanley at the time of the execution of the assignment owed any debts other than some loans from Miss Donahue. On July 7, 1900, Dudley P. Hanley executed an assignment or mortgage of his interest in his father's estate to Thomas Allen, to secure a promissory note of $10,000 of even date, given for a valuable consideration, Hanley falsely and fraudulently representing to Allen at the time that he had made no other conveyance of his interest in his father's estate. This assignment was recorded in the office of the city clerk of Boston, and notice of it given to the trustees. It was executed in Boston and Mrs. Hanley was not present and the master does not find 'that Mrs. Hanley authorized or sanctioned or took any part in or had any knowledge of this transaction before or at the time it occurred, nor * * * that she ever saw Allen or ever had any dealings with him either before or after said assignment was executed. About six weeks after the execution of the assignment, Allen notified Mrs. Hanley, by letter, that such assignment had been made to him, and this, so far as appears, was the first notice or knowledge of said assignment whih she received.' Portions of testimony from certain witnesses before the master have been reported, but the master states that none of his findings were based solely on the testimony reported, as there was other evidence touching the matters. The master found in favor of the claim of James C. McEachen and no appeal has been taken from that portion of the decree directing the trustees to pay the amount of his claim as found by the master. Upon these findings, the master ruled that the assignment by Dudley P. Hanley to Mary A. Donahue (now Hanley) was valid, executed for a sufficient consideration and, being prior to the assignment to Allen, was entitled as against Allen, to the share of Dudley in the trust estate. Various 'requests and suggestions' were filed with the master, but no objections to the draft of his report appear to have been filed by Allen. He seasonably filed, however, a number of exceptions to the master's report. This course was not a compliance with chancery rule 31 and questions raised by the exceptions are not properly before us, no special order of the court allowing exceptions having been entered. Hillier v. Farrell, 185 Mass. 434, 70 N.E. 424; Whitworth v. Lowell, 178 Mass. 43, 50, 59 N.E. 760. The only question open before us properly is whether the decree was warranted on the pleadings and report. Haskell v. Merrill, 179 Mass. 120, 60 N.E. 485; French v. Peters, 177 Mass. 568, 59 N.E. 449. Allen, however, lost no rights, as all his exceptions would probably be overruled and he has only argued points arising upon the record. There are two main questions, one as to the validity of the assignment to Mary A. Donahue, and the other as to her acts alleged to create an estoppel, which prevent her from enforcing her rights under that assignment.

1. It has long been the law of this commonwealth that 'a legal contract and promise made in good faith to marry another must * * * be deemed to be a valuable consideration for the conveyance of an estate, and will justly entitle the grantee to hold it against susequent purchasers or the creditors of the...