Stratton v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 19 October 1899
• Parties: STRATTON et al. v. EDWARDS et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

174 Mass. 374

54 N.E. 886

STRATTON et al. v. EDWARDS et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

October 19, 1899

COUNSEL

J. Willard, I.R. Clark, and E.A. Bayley, for plaintiffs.

W.B French and C.H. Tyler, for defendants.

OPINION

MORTON J.

This is a bill in equity by the assignees in insolvency of Caroline G. Mussey to recover certain real estate alleged to have been conveyed by her in fraud of her creditors to the defendant Edwards. The conveyance was made about a month before the said Caroline was adjudged insolvent on her own petition, and at a time when she was owing more than she could pay. Subsequent to the filing of the bill, Edward W Mussey, husband of said Caroline, was admitted as a party defendant, and filed an answer. The case was heard by a justice of the superior court, and comes here on his report of the facts and of his findings. There was no decree. The questions are: First, whether the property which the said Caroline conveyed was held by her upon a valid trust for her husband; and, second, whether, if there was an element of trust in her holding of the property, this court will uphold and enforce the trust as against her creditors.

It appears that the property in question originally belonged to the husband, and consists of two parcels of real estate. The first is a dwelling house and lot on Warren avenue, Boston occupied by Mr. And Mrs. Mussey as a home, and was conveyed by him to her through a third party, without consideration, in 1883. The second is a store in Cornhill, and was conveyed to her in the same manner, without consideration, in 1890. The legal title to both parcels remained in her till the conveyance which is the subject of this suit. The presiding justice found that "at the time of the conveyance of the Cornhill property, and in accordance with certain oral statements made by him [Mr. Mussey] to Mrs. Mussey, she wrote in pencil a statement in the nature of a declaration of trust, which on December 6, 1890, she copied in ink and signed with her own hand." This statement, as the presiding justice also found, was taken by Mr. Mussey, and "had since remained with other papers in the deposit-vault box, to which he and Mrs. Mussey had access." The material part of this declaration is as follows: "145 Warren Ave., Boston, Mass., Dec. 6th, 1890. December 3d, 1890, Ned [Mr. Mussey] transferred a mortgage to me; also, the store in Cornhill he deeded to me; both to be held in trust for him by me just the same as I hold this house we are now living in,--to be held for him in trust by me. He can sell it or do just the same with it as before, as it is his just the same." Then follow statements that it (the memorandum) was made at his request, as he was not satisfied with the pencil memorandum, and that she was going to ask him to put it in the box at the safety vault, and that, in deference to his request "to write it on something I could always find it," she had written it on something that she should always keep. The presiding justice also found that Mrs. Mussey sent to her mother a letter, of which the material portion is as follows: "Boston, Dec. 4th, 1890. *** Yesterday he [Mr. Mussey] deeded the store in Cornhill to me to hold in trust for him,--only it does not make it any the more mine than it did before, you understand, for he can take it back or sell it at his pleasure same as before. *** In fact, it is just the same as he holds the house,--only deeded to me to hold for him." We think that these statements in the writing under date of December 6, 1890, and in the letter of December 4, 1890, constitute a valid and sufficient declaration of trust on the part of Mrs. Mussey. Barrell v. Joy, 16 Mass. 221; Arms v. Ashley, 4 Pick. 71; Urann v. Coates, 109 Mass. 581; Montague v. Hayes, 10 Gray, 609; Faxon v. Folvey, 110 Mass. 392; Kendrick v. Ray (Mass.) 53 N.E. 823; Gardner v. Rowe, 5 Russ. 258.

The plaintiffs contend, however, that the conveyances were made by Mussey with intent to defraud his creditors, that the trust was unlawful in its creation, and that a court of equity will not lend its aid to uphold or enforce it. There are several answers to this contention. In the first place the presiding justice has not found, and we do not think that it follows from the facts that he has found, that the conveyances made by Mussey constituted a fraud upon the insolvent laws or upon his creditors, or that Mussey had reasonable cause to believe himself insolvent when the...