Stratton v. Bailey

• Citation: 80 Me. 345,14 A. 739
• Parties: STRATTON et al. v. BAILEY et al.
• Decision Date: 31 March 1888
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

14 A. 739

80 Me. 345

STRATTON et al.

v. BAILEY et al.¹

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

March 31, 1888.

On bill, answer, and proof from supreme judicial court, Penobscot county.

Bill in equity, brought against Edgar Bailey and Helen A. Bailey, husband and wife, by Stratton and others, execution creditors of the husband, to satisfy the execution out of property standing in the name of the wife, but claimed to have been purchased with means belonging to the husband.

Wilson & Woodward, for plaintiffs. Barker, Vose & Barker, for defendants.

DANFORTH, J. The plaintiffs, having obtained a judgment against the respondent Edgar Bailey, seek, in this process, to have it satisfied from the land described in the bill, on the ground that it was, in part at least, paid for by his means. The respondent Helen A., who is the wife of Edgar, claims the title. The other respondent has now no interest in the result, he having taken his title as security for a debt which has since been paid. The only question involved is whether the consideration, or any portion of it, was paid from the means of the husband; and upon this question the burden of proof is upon the complainants. The testimony introduced to sustain this burden fails to make out a case. There are some facts proved, such as the husband's personal agency in the negotiation for the purchase, in the payment of money in several instances, as well as in signing papers given as security, which in themselves may have some tendency to sustain the case. But, considered in the light of other circumstances proved, they are equally consistent with the theory of the defendants as with that of the plaintiffs. Notwithstanding these persona] agencies of the husband, the wife is treated as principal and debtor in all these transactions by the parties interested. Whatever lack of means for payment there may have been on the part of the wife, judging from the evidence, we can but infer that there was a still greater lack on the part of the husband. But the husband and wife have both testified, and there is no suggestion from this or any other source that any third person has made any payment for the premises; but it affirmatively appears that all the payments were made by the one or the other, and, by a decided preponderance, that the means used for that purpose were obtained through the energy, labor, and economy of the wife, with a portion claimed as a gift to her. The only question about which there can be any difficulty is, to whom did this labor and this alleged gift belong? The testimony upon this point comes largely from the husband and wife, and develops three points upon which the complainants rely for an answer in their favor: (1) The personal labor of the husband upon the underpinning and in lathing. So far as...