Jameson v. Hayes

• Decision Date: 26 November 1924
• Citation: 145 N.E. 457,250 Mass. 302
• Parties: JAMESON v. HAYES.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

250 Mass. 302

145 N.E. 457

JAMESON

v.HAYES.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Nov. 26, 1924.

Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Marcus Morton, Judge.

Suit in equity by Mary A. Ropes, for whom Irving L. Jameson, her executor, was substituted, against Francis G. Hayes, as administrator of the estate of George D. Shattuck, deceased, seeking accounting from defendant as administrator for sum alleged to have been intrusted to defendant's decedent for safe keeping and investment. On report from superior court. Decree for plaintiff.

Defendant requested the following rulings:

(1) On facts found and evidence set forth by master, plaintiff's cause of action did not arise within six years prior to beginning of suit.

(2) That there was no express trust relation between plaintiff and defendant's intestate.

(3) That liability of defendant's intestate to plaintiff grew out of implied or constructive obligation to which statute of limitations is applicable.

(4) That there was nothing to prevent running of limitations and statute barred cause of action.

R. T. Parke, of Boston, for plaintiff.

J. M. Maloney, of Boston, for defendant.

PIERCE, J.

This is a suit in equity in which the plaintiff's testatrix sought an accounting from the defendant, as the administrator of the estate of George D. Shattuck, for an unstated sum of money, alleged to have been intrusted by her, at divers times, to George D. Shattuck for safe keeping and investment.

The bill charged in substance that the said George D. Shattuck accepted said sums of money from the testatrix with promises to keep and invest the same for her sole use and benefit; that from time to time at her request during the last years of his life (he died May 24, 1921), George D. Shattuck paid the testatrix sums of money as being and as representing income in his hands of and from the sums intrusted by her to him; that she relied wholly upon the said George D. Shattuck to keep the accounts of the moneys intrusted to him as aforesaid and of the income therefrom and that by reason of her reliance upon him, she is unable to state the exact amount of money which she intrusted to him or the amount of property or money which she is entitled to receive from him or from his estate. The bill further charges that at the time of his death the said George D. Shattuck held substantial amounts of money or other property upon the aforesaid trust for the use and benefit of the testatrix; that after his death and after the qualification of the defendant, Francis G. Hayes, as the administrator of his estate, she requested the defendant Hayes, as such administrator, to render to her an accounting of the moneys which she as aforesaid says she intrusted to said George D. Shattuck; that the defendant Hayes denies that the plaintiff ever intrusted any moneys to said George D. Shattuck, and denies that Hayes, as such administrator, has or ever had in his hands or possession any moneys or property equitably belonging to the plaintiff; and that he refuses to render an accounting or pay anything to the plaintiff.

In the bill the testatrix in substance prayed that the court order that the defendant administrator render to the testatrix an accounting of and concerning the sums of money which she intrusted as aforesaid to said Shattuck, of the amounts paid to the testatrix on account thereof by the said Shattuck, and of the amount of money or other property which the testatrix is, upon such accounting, entitled to be paid out of the Shattuck estate, and further, if it shall appear that the said Shattuck did not keep separate and apart from his own properties the moneys intrusted to him by the testatrix, or the investments thereof, that the court establish the amount of money which she is entitled to receive out of his estate by reason of the matters and things alleged.

The defendant admitted that George D. Shattuck died on May 24, 1921; that he (the defendant) was appointed administrator of said Shattuck's estate on June 16, 1921, and that the testatrix demanded an accounting, as alleged in the bill; but he denied that said testatrix ever intrusted any money to this intestate, denied that he, as such administrator, has ever had in his hands or possession any property or funds equitably belonging to her, and he refused to render to her any accounting or to pay anything on account of her said claim.

The answer also set up special matter, and claimed the same benefit therefrom as if the defendant had pleaded or demurred to the bill, to the effect that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief in equity; that the plaintiff had a plain, adequate and complete remedy at law; that the plaintiff did not set forth with sufficient certainty the dates or amounts of payments alleged to have been made to the defendant's intestate for investment; that it appeared from the bill that the plaintiff had been guilty of laches; that the ‘cause of action, if any, therein set forth did not accrue within six years prior to the death of the plaintiff's intestate, so far as the bill alleges payments made to said intestate more than six years prior to [Shattuck's] death.’ An...