Martin v. Barnes

• Decision Date: 27 February 1913
• Citation: 100 N.E. 1023,214 Mass. 29
• Parties: MARTIN v. BARNES et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

214 Mass. 29

100 N.E. 1023

MARTIN v. BARNES et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

February 27, 1913

COUNSEL

Herbert C. Joyner, of Gt. Barrington, and Fred R. Shaw and Henry L Harrington, both of Adams, for appellants.

Vaughan Esty & Clark, of Worcester, for appellee.

OPINION

MORTON J.

This is a bill in equity in which the plaintiff seeks for a recovery and an accounting in respect to certain mortgage deeds and notes and certain bank shares of which he claims to be the owner, but the title to which stands in the name of the defendant Viola F. Martin, his wife. The question is one of ownership between the plaintiff and his wife.

The plaintiff is a practicing physician and formerly lived in Petersham in this commonwealth. In 1898 he and his wife went to Colorado. While there, differences arose between them and they separated. He returned to this state and his wife remained in Colorado and obtained a divorce from him and an award of alimony which includes most, if not all, of the securities in question. She claims the securities by virtue of this award of alimony and also as a gift from her husband and because the consideration moved from her in whole or in part, and on other grounds. She also claims that the plaintiff has been guilty of laches in bringing his bill and is not entitled to relief. The case was sent to a master. He found that the securities were the property of the plaintiff; that he paid the consideration therefor and that he never intended to give them and had not given them to his wife. He also found that the divorce obtained by her in Colorado was of no force and effect either as a divorce or an award of alimony, because, as he found, some time before and at the time of the divorce proceedings the plaintiff was domiciled in and was a resident of Springfield, Massachusetts, where he has since resided and where he now resides; that he never appeared himself and never authorized any one to appear for him in the divorce proceedings, and that the Colorado court had no jurisdiction over him or over any of the securities included in the award of alimony or named in the bill. He further found 'on all the evidence that the plaintiff was not guilty of laches in bringing this suit.'

The evidence is not reported, and the master was not obliged to report it even though requested to do so by the defendants. His findings are conclusive unless it appears from the report...