Towne v. Wason

• Decision Date: 06 April 1880
• Citation: 128 Mass. 517
• Parties: William H. Towne, administrator, v. Elbridge Wason
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

128 Mass. 517

William H. Towne, administrator, v. Elbridge Wason

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

April 6, 1880

Suffolk. Contract on the following promissory note, signed and indorsed by the defendant: "Boston, Aug. 11, 1874. For value received, I promise to pay to my own order thirty-one hundred twenty-five dollars on demand, with interest, this money being a fund belonging to the estate of the late Leonard Chase." Trial in the Superior Court before Putnam, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows:

The plaintiff produced the note declared on, which the defendant admitted that he executed and delivered to the plaintiff's intestate on the day of its date; and thereupon the plaintiff rested his case. The defendant then offered evidence tending to prove that Leonard Chase, of Milford, New Hampshire, died intestate in 1868, and Gilbert Wadleigh was duly appointed his administrator; that Chase was a member of the firm of Putnam & Chase, which firm owned certain shares of stock of the Souhegan Manufacturing Company; that the mills belonging to this company were burned, and, upon recovery of insurance, the treasurer deposited the money in the Souhegan National Bank, of Milford, of which the plaintiff's intestate was president, with the dividend book of the company, and with instructions to the cashier to pay out the money to the stockholders and take receipts therefor; that Daniel Putnam as surviving partner, receipted for the amount due the firm of Putnam & Chase, and, taking his share, left with the bank the amount belonging to the estate of Chase; that the defendant's wife was a daughter of Chase, and one fourth of the money so left belonged to her; that, a short time after the money was left at the bank, the plaintiff's intestate suggested to the defendant that he should take the money, give his note for it, and thus have it at interest that the defendant declined, and suggested that the plaintiff's intestate should take the money and give his note for it, but finally it was decided that the defendant should take the money and give his note for it; that subsequently the plaintiff's intestate brought the money to Boston and presented the note to the defendant to sign, being of the tenor of the above, except that it stopped at the word "interest;" that the defendant declined signing it in that form, and the plaintiff's intestate added the remaining words, whereupon the defendant received the money and signed and indorsed the note, which the plaintiff's intestate retained in his possession; that the cashier of the bank afterwards saw the note in an envelope marked in the handwriting of the plaintiff's intestate, "Property of heirs of L. Chase," and it was afterwards taken from the bank by the plaintiff's intestate, who afterwards told the administrator of Chase that the defendant had the money represented by the note; that the heirs of Chase desired that the defendant should hold the money for their benefit; that the widow of the plaintiff's intestate saw the note in the possession of her husband in an envelope marked "Belonging to the heirs of late L. Chase;" that Wadleigh, who had not completed the settlement of the estate before the trial, demanded in writing the note of the plaintiff, and forbade the prosecution of the suit; and that all of the heirs of Chase had in writing objected to the suit, and directed the plaintiff before the trial to deliver the note to Wadleigh as administrator.

The plaintiff contended that the note was the property of his intestate; and introduced evidence tending to prove this. The defendant thereupon offered evidence tending to show that R.M. Wallace, who was appointed administrator in the place of the plaintiff, knew of no claim that he had as administrator against the estate of Chase; and that the four children and administrator of Chase knew of no such claim, nor did the widow of the plaintiff's intestate.

The plaintiff objected to all the evidence offered by the defendant; and contended, and asked the judge to rule, that such evidence constituted no defence to the action, and that the could recover. But the judge declined so to rule; and instructed the...