Walbridge v. Walbridge

• Court: Maine Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WILSON, J.
• Citation: Walbridge v. Walbridge, 118 Me. 337, 108 A. 105 (Me. 1919)
• Decision Date: 20 November 1919
• Parties: WALBRIDGE v. WALBRIDGE et al.

108 A. 105

WALBRIDGE

v. WALBRIDGE et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Nov. 20, 1919.

Appeal from Supreme Judicial Court, Kennebec County, at Law.

Bill by Lenora M. Walbridge against George P. Walbridge and another. From decree of the sitting justice for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Appeal dismissed, and decree affirmed.

Argued before SPEAR, HANSON, DUNN, WILSON, and DEASY, JJ.

Benedict F. Maher, of Augusta, for appellants.

George W. Heselton, of Gardiner, for appellee.

WILSON, J. A bill in equity brought by the plaintiff against her husband, George P. Walbridge, and her father-in-law, James P. Walbridge, under section 6 of chapter 66, R. S., to recover money received from her by her husband which she claims that in equity and good conscience he ought to return, and to declare void as to the plaintiff a mortgage given by the husband to his father. It comes before this court on appeal from the decree of the sitting justice.

It is alleged in the bill that the plaintiff from time to time advanced money to her husband to be used in the construction, alteration, and repairs of certain buildings which he was erecting on land the title to which was in the defendants jointly, in all amounting to $1,229.60; that the plaintiff advanced the several amounts with the expectation of having a home for themselves; that after completing the house her husband abused and mistreated her and finally left her, returning to his father's house, and refused longer to live with her or return the money she had advanced, and, with intent to defraud her of the moneys so advanced, mortgaged the buildings and his interest in the land to his father, the other defendant, to secure an alleged indebtedness of $3,324, and which, the evidence discloses, was for board of the defendant George P. Walbridge and the plaintiff while they were living with the father after their marriage.

The defendants contended that the money was a gift or a contribution by the wife in the usual course of domestic relations, and for their mutual benefit and with no expectation of return, and that no obligation between husband and wife similar to that of debtor and creditor was thereby created.

If such were the facts, we think section 6, c. 66, R. S., was not intended to apply. Stone v. Curtis, 115 Me. 63, 97 Atl. 213. It could not have been the intent of the Legislature, we think, to provide for the adjustment of all the financial relations between husband and wife under this statute. No end of...