Perkins v. Perkins
| Decision Date | 06 March 1883 |
| Citation | 134 Mass. 441 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Lucy S. Perkins v. T. H. Perkins & others |
[Syllabus Material]
Suffolk. Bill in equity, filed November 15, 1880, under the Gen Sts c. 113, § 2, cl. 11, against T. H. Perkins, Edward W Mussey and Julia Higgins, to reach and apply, in satisfaction of an execution for alimony held by the plaintiff against the defendant Perkins, her former husband, certain shares of stock, standing in the name of the defendant Mussey, and claimed by the defendant Higgins to be held by Mussey in trust for her benefit. The case was heard by Devens, J., and reported for the consideration of the full court, in substance as follows:
There was due from the defendant Perkins to the plaintiff the sum of $ 11,198.95, being the balance due on an execution against him in her favor, dated November 12, 1880, for alimony in a divorce proceeding begun on January 28, 1880.
In 1870, certain shares of stock in various corporations were set off to Higgins, with other property, in the division of the estates of her brother and sister. At the request of Higgins, the shares of stock were transferred to Perkins that she might be able to sell them without the consent of her husband, from whom she was separated. Certificates, each of which was numbered, were issued to Perkins in his own name alone. Perkins in fact took the shares in trust for Higgins, but improperly, though without any fraudulent purpose, mixed them with his own shares in the same corporations, and sold them as his own. During the nine years following, he parted with all the shares of stock which he had had from Higgins, and it did not appear what became of them or their proceeds. During the same time he purchased and sold shares of stock, so that, in each of the corporations, he sometimes had certificates in his name for a larger number of shares than he received from Higgins, sometimes for a smaller number, sometimes for the same number, and sometimes for none at all. He never accounted to Higgins for the sales of the shares he received from her, but paid her sums of money equivalent to the dividends declared from time to time by the various corporations on the respective number of shares in each, which he had received from her.
Prior to December 15, 1879, Perkins had from time to time acquired, by purchase or otherwise, and then held standing in his name, shares of stock in each corporation in amounts corresponding to those he had received from Higgins, and he then held no other shares in any of these corporations.
On December 15, 1879, Higgins asked Perkins for the names of the stocks belonging to her, saying she intended to make her will, and he gave her a paper with merely a list of stocks upon it, which list included those the subject of this action.
On March 2, 1880, he transferred sixteen shares in one of the corporations, and on the 13th of the same month there were transferred to him the same number of shares in the same corporation, which are among those now in controversy.
On May 15, 1880, Perkins transferred the stocks now in controversy to Mussey, and took out new certificates in Mussey's name, without disclosing to him or to any one a purpose to protect Mrs. Higgins or to create a trust, and without making any memorandum to that effect. He testified that he made this transfer "to protect the identity of these shares as belonging to Julia Higgins, and not to connect them with any other part of my property." Mussey transferred the certificates in blank to Perkins, and handed them to him. Subsequently, Perkins gave them back to Mussey, but without disclosing to him or to any one a purpose to protect Higgins or to create a trust. There was no evidence that the shares held by Perkins in December 1879 were purchased with the proceeds of the shares belonging to Higgins which had been sold.
The judge found that Perkins purchased these shares for the purpose of guarding the trust, and intending to set them aside and use them as the trust fund; that the giving of the memorandum of December 15, 1879, was a declaration of such intent; and that, in putting the stocks into the hands of Mussey, he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mickelson v. Barnet
...restitution, restored the constructive trust, and that the assets promised immediately became impressed with that trust. See Perkins v. Perkins, 134 Mass. 441 (1883); Supreme Lodge of the Portuguese Fraternity v. Liberty Trust Co., 215 Mass. 27, 102 N.E. 96 (1913). In both of the cited case......
-
Somerville Nat. Bank v. Hornblower
...by another is required to accept in substitution other stock which may be on hand. Parsons v. Martin, 11 Gray, 111, 117;Perkins v. Perkins, 134 Mass. 441, 444. They merely give, by a fiction, an extraordinary right of reclamation. The contention made by Hornblower & Weeks that ‘it was inequ......
-
Somerville Natl. Bank v. Hornblower
...by another is required to accept in substitution other stock which may be on hand. Parsons v. Martin, 11 Gray, 111, 117. Perkins v. Perkins, 134 Mass. 441 , 444. They give, by a fiction, an extraordinary right of reclamation. The contention made by Hornblower and Weeks that "it was inequita......
-
Supreme Lodge of the Portuguese Fraternity of the U.S. of America v. Liberty Trust Co.
... ... this time had been in this account untouched. That this did ... not act as a dissipation of the trust fund. Perkins v ... Perkins, 134 Mass. 441, is decisive on that point ... The ... defendant has argued that De Avellar had no right to ... ...