McNally v. Weld
| Decision Date | 08 February 1883 |
| Citation | 14 N.W. 895,30 Minn. 209 |
| Parties | Eliza McNally v. Luther R. Weld, Administrator |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
In 1857, the plaintiff, then the wife of Thomas Garvey, advanced to him $ 200, to be used in pre-empting land, and which was so used by him. In 1858, Thomas Garvey died, and the expenses of his last sickness and of his funeral, amounting to $ 205.50, were paid by Patrick Garvey, upon the request of plaintiff, and upon her agreeing to repay them, which she did in 1859. Patrick Garvey was appointed administrator of the estate of Thomas Garvey in 1858, and afterwards, and about the year 1874, died, leaving the estate unsettled. On August 13, 1877, the defendant was duly appointed administrator of the estate of Thomas Garvey, in place of Patrick Garvey deceased, by the probate court for Rice county. No commissioners to hear claims against the estate of Thomas Garvey were ever appointed, nor was any opportunity ever given to creditors to present their claims, until the appointment of defendant as administrator, when the probate court made an order appointing a time and place for the hearing of claims against the estate. At such time and place the plaintiff appeared and presented claims against the estate for the above-mentioned sums, and the same were in part disallowed.
On appeal to the district court for Rice county, issues were framed and the action was tried before Start, J., (acting for the judge of the 5th district,) and a jury. Specific questions were submitted to the jury, and were answered as follows:
Answer. "Yes."
"Were commissioners ever appointed to adjust claims and demands against said Thomas Garvey's estate?" Answer. "We find no evidence that commissioners were appointed."
Answer.
Answer.
"Did the plaintiff repay the amount so advanced, if any, to said Patrick Garvey, September 8, 1859?" Answer.
Answer. "No."
There was no general verdict, and, upon these special findings judgment was ordered in favor of plaintiff for the sums above-mentioned, with interest from the times of their payment, amounting in all to the sum of $ 1,084.50. Defendant appeals from an order refusing a new trial.
It follows that the order denying a new trial should be affirmed.
J. B. & T. H. Quinn, for appellant.
There was no evidence from which the jury could infer a loan by plaintiff to her husband. The evidence must show conclusively that what might be intended as a gift was actually a loan. Hall v. Finch, 29 Wis. 278; Courtright v Courtright, 53 Iowa 57; McCrory v. Foster, 1 Iowa, 271; Moak's Van Santvoord's Pleadings 488, 489 and notes.
Plaintiff had no authority to pay the medical bills and funeral expenses, and her payment of them was entirely voluntary, and she cannot recover the amount paid. Smith v. Schroeder, 15 Minn. 18, (35;) Beach v. Vanderburgh, 10 John. 360; Overseer v. Overseer, 14 John. 87; Patterson v. Patterson, 59 N.Y. 574, 582; Green v. Salmon, 8 Ad. & El. 348; Brice v. Wilson, 3 Nev. & Man. 512; Pelton v. Knapp, 21 Wis. 64; Addison on Contracts, §§ 1405, 1407; 1 Parsons on Contracts, 471, 474.
These claims are barred by Gen. St. 1878, c. 66, §§ 18, 19.
G. W. Batchelder, for respondent.
On appeal to the district court of Rice county from the decision of the probate court in the matter of the account of this plaintiff, who was the wife of Thomas Garvey, against his estate, issues were duly framed between the parties to this action, and, upon a trial by jury, special findings upon the several issues were made by them, by which it is found that the plaintiff loaned and advanced to her husband in March, 1857, the sum of $ 200, and did, also, after his decease, on September 8, 1859, pay the amount of the expenses of his last sickness and of his funeral, which had been previously, at her request, and on her promise of repayment, advanced therefor by one Patrick Garvey, being the sum of $ 205.50; that Thomas Garvey died in May, 1858, and Patrick Garvey was appointed administrator of his estate in July, 1858, and subsequently died, leaving the estate unsettled; that no commissioners were appointed to adjust claims against the estate; that defendant was appointed administrator in 1877, and thereafter, for the first time, an order was made by the probate court for the hearing and adjusting of claims. This appeal is from an order denying a motion for a new trial, made by defendant upon the ground that the verdict was not justified by the evidence and was contrary to law. It brings before us, therefore, the propriety of the findings of the jury. As there do not appear to have been any errors in the rulings of the court at the trial, we are to consider, chiefly, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings.
1. In support of the first item of plaintiff's claim, it appears from the evidence that the plaintiff advanced the money to her husband to enable him to pre-empt a piece of land. The alleged debt was not evidenced by any writing, and there is no other direct evidence as to the character of the transaction -- whether a loan or a gift -- than the fact that she furnished the same to him as above stated, he having no means of his own to purchase the land with. Upon a pre-emption he would take the title, and the confidential relations of the parties would account for the informal character of the transaction, and for her not exacting security for payment prior to his death the year following. Under the circumstances it was not necessarily a gift, and we think the jury might, as they have done, find otherwise. As between husband and wife, in such cases, the character of the transaction, whether a gift, or a loan, or a trust, is a question of intention, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. Schouler on Husband & Wife, § 395. It is not necessary that there should be any formal promise or agreement to repay the money, in order to establish the right of the wife to recover. Steadman v. Wilbur, 7 R.I. 481, 487.
The Revised Statutes of 1851 saved to the wife...
To continue reading
Request your trial