Robinson v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 01 April 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 1513.,1513. |
| Parties | ROBINSON v. ROBINSON et al. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Alberic A. Archambault, Judge.
Suit in equity by Anna Robinson against George E. Robinson and Louise Boudreau to have declared that respondent George E. Robinson held legal title of an undivided one-half part of real estate in complainant's favor, and to have declared that attachment placed upon such real estate by respondent Louise Boudreau to be null and void, and for certain injunctive and other relief. Upon death of respondent Louise Boudreau, Maria Boudreau, administratrix of her estate, was substituted as a party respondent. From a decree dismissing the bill, the complainant appeals.
Appeal denied and dismissed, decree affirmed, and cause remanded to the superior court for further proceedings.
Thomas L. Carty, of Pawtucket, for complainant.
Woolley, Blais & Quinn, of Pawtucket, for respondent Maria Boudreau.
This suit in equity was brought by the complainant against her husband George E. Robinson and against Louise Boudreau, who, prior to the bringing of this proceeding, and as a creditor of said George E. Robinson, had attached his interest in certain real estate in Pawtucket standing in his and the complainant's names as tenants in common. In her bill the complainant prayed that her husband be declared to hold the legal title of an undivided one-half part of said real estate in trust in her favor; that she be declared to be the owner of the legal as well as of the equitable title to the attached real estate; that the attachment placed upon said real estate by the respondent Louise Boudreau be declared null and void; and that the complainant be granted certain injunctive and other relief.
The cause was heard by a justice of the superior court on bill, answer of the respondent Louise Boudreau, replication and proof. The other named respondent, George E. Robinson, made himself a party after the cause was heard in the superior court, as we will hereinafter point out. The trial justice denied and dismissed the bill and a decree to that effect was duly entered. From the entry of such decree the complainant appealed to this court.
The bill of complaint was filed June 6, 1938. The subpoena which was issued on that date was returnable to the superior court June 21, 1938. The return on this subpoena shows that due service thereof was made upon the respondent Louise Boudreau June 8, 1938. No service of this subpoena, or of any other, was ever made on George E. Robinson.
On July 18, 1938, the respondent Louise Boudreau filed an answer denying the material allegations of the bill of complaint. Thereafter her death was suggested on the record, and her sister Maria Boudreau, the administratrix of her estate, was substituted as a party respondent on October 18, 1939. The cause was heard in the superior court in January, 1940, and at the end of the hearing the trial justice rendered his decision from the bench dismissing the bill. The final decree was entered the "26th day of January, 1940, as of January 25, 1940." Although respondent George E. Robinson had been a witness for the complainant at the hearing of this cause, he took no action to clarify his position as a respondent until some two months after the entry of such decree.
Under date of March 21, 1940, the following stipulation signed by him personally was filed in the superior court: "I hereby acknowledge due service of the subpoena issued on the bill of complaint, admit the allegations in said bill, and join in the prayer thereof, as of June 10, 1938", a date which was prior to the return-day of the original subpoena. Also on March 21, 1940, and over his signature, he stipulated as follows: "I hereby waive notice of the hearing on the allowance of the transcript, and assent to its being allowed at any time."
It is clear from the above record, however, that George E. Robinson was really not a party respondent with an interest adversary to the complainant's. Although she contends that her husband was, to a certain extent, hostile to her, nevertheless a consideration of his testimony fails to bear out this contention. In fact, his stipulation above set forth and the evidence presented by him, in so far as it went, tended to aid the complainant.
After examination of the rather voluminous transcript of the testimony we feel that it is not necessary to set out a detailed statement of the evidence, but that a brief summary of the important portions of it is sufficient. This is because the disposition of the cause depends largely upon what view is taken of the conflicting evidence. This involves primarily a consideration of the credibility of the witnesses. The trial justice, who had the opportunity, which we do not have, of hearing and seeing them testify, was in a more favorable position than we are to pass upon that issue.
It appears from the evidence that on August 24, 1912, the complainant and her husband bought the real estate in question for $2,600, of which sum $800 was paid in cash, and the balance was obtained from a bank by a mortgage on such real estate. The application for this mortgage was signed by the complainant, and gave the names of George E. Robinson and Anna Robinson as the owners of the property. The deed, which was to them as tenants in common, and the mortgage were drawn by a representative of the bank. This mortgage was discharged in 1918.
The complainant contends that all money that went into this transaction was her own. While it is true that for a considerable number of years she was at certain times engaged in gainful occupations, yet her husband George E. Robinson, who was a plumber, was also during that time employed, except during a period when he was ill. The Robinsons had one child. From the time that the real estate was purchased up to the hearing in this cause the family relations of the Robinsons apparently continued more or less normally, though it appears from the evidence that, at certain times, the husband's conduct was decidedly questionable. However, as we have before indicated, he apparently testified willingly on his wife's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. One Parcel of Real Property with Bldgs., Appurtenances and Improvements Known as 116 Emerson Street, Located in City of Providence, R.I.
...if the relation between them is that of husband and wife, the evidence must be full, clear and convincing." Robinson v. Robinson, 66 R.I. 321, 327, 19 A.2d 1, 3-4 (1941) (emphasis added). See also Chase v. Chase, 78 R.I. 278, 283, 81 A.2d 686, 688 (1951) (requiring "full, clear, satisfactor......
-
Rebelo v. Cardoso
...the questions arising therefrom and we cannot say that he was clearly wrong. Kerr v. McKenna, 57 R.I. 252, 189 A. 408; Robinson v. Robinson, 66 R.I. 321, 19 A.2d 1; Parness v. Weiner, 77 R.I. 74 A.2d The respondents' appeal is denied and dismissed, the decree appealed from is affirmed, and ......
-
Campanella v. Campanella., 1853.
...especially if the relationship between them is that of husband and wife, the evidence must be clear and convincing. Robinson v. Robinson, 66 R.I. 321, 19 A.2d 1; Larocque v. Larocque, 74 R.I. 72, 58 A.2d 633, and cases cited. When the evidence relating to the manner in which the Campanellas......
-
Hussey v. Hussey., Eq. No. 1939.
...To establish a resulting trust the evidence must be clear and convincing. Larocque v. Larocque, 74 R.I. 72, 58 A.2d 633; Robinson v. Robinson, 66 R.I. 321, 19 A.2d 1; Oldham v. Oldham, 58 R.I. 268, 192 A. 758. Even if we were to give no weight to the rescript of the trial justice, our own i......