Marsh v. Moore

• Citation: 161 A. 227
• Decision Date: 02 July 1932
• Docket Number: No. 1064.,1064.
• Parties: MARSH et al. v. MOORE et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island

161 A. 227

MARSH et al.

v. MOORE et al.

No. 1064.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 2, 1932.

Appeal from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Hugh B. Baker, Judge.

Suit by Susan L. Marsh and another against Richard S. Moore and others, for an injunction and accounting and to have certain alleged fraudulent conveyances set aside. A preliminary injunction was issued, and, on motion of complainant Susan L. Marsh, a writ of attachment of respondents' property was granted. From a decree denying their motions to quash the writ of attachment, respondents appeal.

Appeal denied, and papers in cause ordered sent back to superior court for further proceedings.

Henry M. Boss, Jr., and Joseph W. Grimes, both of Providence, for appellants.

Ralph M. Greenlaw, Philip C. Joslin, and Edwin J. Tetlow, all of Providence, for appellees.

STEARNS, C. J.

This is an appeal by respondents from a decree of the superior court denying their motions to quash a writ of attachment which was ordered by said court to issue in a cause in equity.

The complainants, Susan L. Marsh and Ebenezer M. Marsh, the children and the sole heirs of Franklin P. and Lavinia A. Marsh, brought a suit in equity against Richard S. Moore, Marguerite A. Moore, his wife, and Richard S. Moore Company, a Rhode Island corporation.

The bill of complaint alleges fraud and a combination by respondents to injure and defraud complainants. The principal relief sought is an injunction, an accounting, and, to have certain alleged fraudulent conveyances set aside.

The bill alleges that Franklin P. Marsh died intestate in 1928 and Lavinia A. Marsh died testate in 1930; that the estate of both of the persons deceased now belongs to complainants in equal shares; that Richard S. Moore was trustee under the will of Ebenezer Morgan; that the trust had terminated and the principal was payable to complainants in equal shares; that respondent Richard S. Moore was appointed by the probate court to administer the estates of Lavinia A. Marsh and Franklin P. Marsh, and has refused to deliver to complainants the property belonging to them, and has appropriated the same for his own use; that in December, 1931, he caused to be formed a corporation under the name of R. S. Moore Company, Inc., to which corporation and to his wife he has transferred a large portion of the personal property owned by him or held by him in trust for complainants, with intent to hinder, delay, and defraud his creditors.

There are other allegations of wrongdoing by respondents which need not be stated. A preliminary injunction was issued, and thereafter, on motion of complainant Susan L. Marsh, supported by her affidavit, the superior court entered an order granting a writ of attachment of the respondent's property. G. L. 1923, c. 349, § 27.

Respondents contend that the order for attachment is improper because (a) the damages claimed are speculative and uncertain;

(b) neither the bill of complaint nor the affidavit shows a cause of action based upon a contract upon which damages can be determined under the rules applying to contracts;

(c) the cause of action is ex delicto; (d) as to Marguerite A. Moore and the corporation, the writ should be quashed, as the bill seeks to set aside fraudulent conveyances. Respondents do not object to the writ because the damages are unliquidated, but because they are too speculative. These objections are without merit. The damages in a suit for an accounting are to be determined by...