Mitchell v. Weaver
Decision Date | 01 July 1922 |
Parties | MITCHELL v. WEAVER et al. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report from Probate Court, Suffolk County; Robert Grant, Judge.
Suit by Arthur Y. Mitchell against Arabella B. Weaver and others to compel delivery of property claimed by petitioner as part of the estate of Alice M. Robinson of whose will he was executor. Reported from the probate court. Decree for petitioner.
Edmund A. Whitman and Hewitt G. Fletcher, both of Boston, for petitioner.
James E. Kelley, of Boston, for respondents.
The petitioner is the executor of the will of Alice M. Robinson, which has been proved and allowed. The testatrix, a teacher in the public schools, left a small estate acquired from her earnings, and by inheritance from her father, and the proceeds of a policy of insurance upon the life of a deceased son. It is claimed by the petitioner that part of the assets of the estate consisting of war savings stamps, savings bank deposit books, stock, bonds and other securities now in the possession of the respondents, her only heirs at law and next of kin, belong to the estate but are so secreted and withheld that they cannot be replevied in an action at law. The record presents two questions, namely, whether there was a perfected gift to the respondents by the testatrix, and whether the court of probate had jurisdiction of the suit. The securities in question were kept by her in a safe deposit box with a trust company, and at the date of her death ‘some diamonds, jewelry and a bank deposit book were in her room.’ After making her will in which she left all her property to the petitioner and executor in trust to pay the income for life to the respondents or the survivor of them; and at their death to distribute the entire estate to the petitioner's grandson, she took the respondent Mrs. Weaver to the office of the trust company; ‘and told the officials that she wanted her to have the right of access to the * * * deposit box.’ This respondent testified that the testatrix at that time said:
It is also found that ‘she gave her sisters a key to the box and sent them a list of the property therein.’ Subsequently Mrs. Weaver voluntarily returned the key to the testatrix because she said:
‘I did not wish to carry it around in my pocket any longer and I knew I could go there to the box if anything happened to her.’
It further appeared that in a letter to Mrs. Weaver she inclosed ‘a list of what is in my box,’ with a statement that she would send an extra key ‘when I find it.’ In a letter to the respondent Miss Cushing she said and at the end of the list she states that one of the bonds scheduled has been exchanged, The final letter to Miss Cushing written February 18, 1921, just before leaving her home for an operation from the effects of which death ensued the same day, says:
Then follows the list of the bonds and the income therefrom amounting to $227.98 from which $50 is deducted with this comment, ‘If I have an operation $50 a year less, for I shall be obliged to get Mr. Mitchell to sell a bond to pay expenses.’ Inclosed with the letter was the following instrument dated February 12, 1921, signed by her and by three witnesses:
And before she went to the hospital she wrote Mr. Mitchell:
The instrument just quoted although propounded for probate was disallowed for want of proper attestation, and can have no force as a testamentary disposition of the whole or any part of her estate. The judge rightly found on the evidence that no trust was created except the trust established by the will, and that on all the facts there was no delivery of the securities kept in the safe deposit box and in the room of the testatrix sufficient to sustain a gift inter vivos or causa mortis. The authority to open the safe deposit box terminated when the testatrix died and it is clear that no actual delivery of the property whereby the donor relinquished dominion and control over it ever took place in her life time. Parish v. Stone, 14 Pick. 198, 203,25 Am. Dec. 378;McGrath v. Reynolds, 116 Mass. 566;Day v. Richards, 197 Mass. 86, 87, 83 N. E. 324, and cases cited; Nelson v. Peterson, 202 Mass. 369, 371, 88 N. E. 916,132 Am. St. Rep. 503.
The numerous requests of the respondents resting on the merits were denied righty. The answer however avers that the petitioner has a plain and adequate remedy at law, and that the court was without jurisdiction. It is said in Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence (14th Ed.) § 185b, where the question of concurrent jurisdiction is considered, that--
‘Where the final relief is substantially a recovery of chattels the jurisdiction * * * really rests upon the fact that the only relief which the plaintiff can have is the possession of the identical thing as this remedy cannot with certainty be obtained in a common law action.’
See notes (e) and (d) for a collection of cases in which the remedy has been recognized and applied. And in Pierce v. Lamson, 5 Allen, 60, 81 Am. Dec. 732, a suit in equity to recover a mortgage, the court say, it was brought under ‘one of the most ancient heads of chancery jurisdiction.’ The petitioner was entitled to all the assets in the form in which they were left by the testatrix, and to ‘settle the estate without incurring the expense, delay and trouble of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Merchants Nat. Bank of Boston v. Merchants Nat. Bank of Boston
...it is their duty to collect and account for them to the estate. See Phillips v. McCandlish, 239 Mass. 301, 131 N.E. 861;Mitchell v. Weaver, 242 Mass. 331, 136 N.E. 166;Abbruzise v. Sposata, 306 Mass. 151, 27 N.E.2d 722;Walsh v. Mullen, 314 Mass. 241, 50 N.E.2d 1. The apportionment of the ta......
-
Cartall v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.
...46 S.W.2d 135; Bauernschmidt v. Bauerschmidt, 97 Md. 35, 54 A. 637; Dingley v. Robinson, 149 Wash. 301, 270 P. 1018; Mitchell v. Weaver, 242 Mass. 331, 136 N.E. 166; Dodson v. Matthews, 22 Tenn.App. 49, 117 S.W.2d Andreas v. Andreas, 84 N.J.Eq. 368, 94 A. 417; Bolles v. Toledo Trust Co., 13......
-
State ex rel. Union Nat. Bank of Springfield v. Blair
... ... 254; In re Smith's Estate, 144 Pa. 428, ... 22 A. 916; Young v. Young, 80 N.Y. 422; Wadd v ... Hazelton, 137 N.Y. 215, 33 N.E. 143; Mitchell v ... Weaver, 242 Mass. 331, 136 N.E. 166; Robertson v ... Parker, 287 Mass. 351, 199 N.E. 645. (11) The ... declarations attributable to ... ...
-
Merchants Nat. Bank of Boston v. Merchants Nat. Bank of Boston
...the executors, then it is their duty to collect and account for them to the estate. See Phillips v. McCandlish, 239 Mass. 301; Mitchell v. Weaver, 242 Mass. 331; Abbruzise v. Sposata, 306 Mass. 151; Walsh Mullen, 314 Mass. 241 . The apportionment of the tax among the beneficiaries under the......