Keown v. Keown

• Decision Date: 25 May 1918
• Citation: 119 N.E. 785,230 Mass. 313
• Parties: KEOWN v. KEOWN et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

230 Mass. 313

119 N.E. 785

KEOWN

v.KEOWN et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 25, 1918.

Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Jabez Fox, Judge.

Suit by James A. Keown against Mary E. Keown and others. From orders sustaining demurrers to, and from final decree dismissing, the amended bill, plaintiff appeals. Decree affirmed.

James A. Keown, of Boston, in pro. per.

John H. Casey and Frederic J. Muldoon, both of Boston, for respondents.

DE COURCY, J.

This suit is before us on the plaintiff's appeals from orders sustaining the demurrers and from the final decree dismissing the amended bill. The record improperly contains other matters which cannot be now considered, including a ‘petition to enjoin an action at law,’ an ‘affidavit contradicting due and timely service of notice,’ and an ‘appeal’ from an order of a judge of the superior court striking from the record an alleged ‘bill of exceptions.’

The bill in equity is informal and confusing; and the brief is devoted largely to matters not relevant to the issues raised by the demurrers. The main purpose of the bill is to compel the defendant Mary E. Keown, wife of the plaintiff, to convey to him five parcels of real estate, and to account to him for the rents and profits. The title of the several parcels is set forth in the bill as follows: The first lot, on High and Oxford streets in Lynn, was purchased by him for $5,500 November 2, 1902, but the conveyance was made to his mother, Annie Keown. On April 25, 1904, she conveyed it to a corporation named the Wageworkers' Co-operative Emergency Hospital, receiving no consideration except a mortgage back for $7,500. This mortgage was assigned, on May 17, 1907, to the plaintiff's wife (the defendant Mary E. Keown); it was foreclosed June 26, 1911, and the title was conveyed to her. On May 10, 1912, the property was mortgaged to a savings bank to secure a loan of $6,000. Two days later a conveyance was made to Margaret E. Hughes and she gave back to said Mary E. Keown a mortgage thereon for $11,000. The second parcel is on Hancock street in Auburndale. The bill states that this was conveyed to the defendant Mary E. Keown in exchange for land in Alhambra, California, the title of which also was in her, although the consideration is alleged to have been paid by the plaintiff. Apparently there is no mortgage on this lot, but it is under attachment in an action to recover for repairs, and the taxes are in arrears. The third lot is in San Diego, California. This was conveyed to the defendant Mary E. Keown April 19, 1912, but the plaintiff alleges that the consideration (the amount of which is not stated), was money earned by him as a physician. The fourth lot is in Los Angeles county, California. The plaintiff alleges that this was conveyed to said Mary E. Keown on or about March 27, 1912, but that he paid the purchase price. The fifth lot is on 25th Avenue, San Francisco. In the original bill it is alleged that the defendant Mary E. Keown had arranged to purchase this land before her marriage to the plaintiff; and had paid $500 on account. In the amended bill it is further alleged that the conveyance was made in 1907, and that the plaintiff ‘has paid in part payments the purchase price.’

Before considering whether the plaintiff has set up any ground for equitable relief against his wife, Mary E. Keown, it is plain that no case is stated against the other defendants. The only allegation as to Eugene F. Trudo and Margaret A. Sullivan is that they ‘are necessary parties to the final determination of these matters.’ The defendant James J. Hughes is not even named in the bill, so far as we have discovered. Margaret T. Hughes was made a party defendant; but the bill alleges that she is dead and that no administrator has been appointed for her estate. It appears in the record that James J. Hughes was appointed administrator, and allowed to come in and defend on November 5, 1917; but the plaintiff has not made him a party. As to all these parties at least, the court rightly sustained the demurrers and dismissed the bill.

We now consider the allegations as to Mary E. Keown, hereinafter referred to as the defendant. Although the plaintiff prays for a conveyance to himself of the five parcels of real estate, what he apparently seeks is to have her legal title impressed with a trust in his favor. It is not claimed that the legal title of any of this property ever was in the plaintiff's name. On the other hand, the...