Weeks & Potter Co. v. Elliott
| Decision Date | 05 December 1899 |
| Citation | 93 Me. 286,45 A. 29 |
| Parties | WEEKS & POTTER CO. v. ELLIOTT. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
(Official.)
Report from supreme judicial court, Waldo county.
Presentation of claim by Luella E. Elliott against the estate of her husband, in insolvency. From an allowance of the claim the Weeks & Potter Company appeal. Dismissed.
Argued before PETERS, C. J., and EMERY, HASKELL, WISWELL, SAVAGE, and FOGLER, JJ.
Jos. Williamson, for appellant.
W. P. Thompson, for claimant.
SAVAGE, J. Luella E. Elliott presented claims against the estate of her husband, Tilton A. Elliott, in insolvency. She claimed to be the indorsee and owner of one note for $1.000, originally given by her husband to her father, A. E. Houghton, and by him indorsed to her; also, the payee of another note, for $500, given to her by her husband; also, the holder and owner of a duebill for $100. All these obligations were for money lent. These claims were admitted to proof by the judge of the court of insolvency, and the Weeks & Potter Company, a creditor, appealed.
The appellant's objections are (1) that credit should be given on said claim for the support furnished to A. E. Houghton and wife by the insolvent debtor; and (2) that the claimant, as wife of the debtor, is not entitled to prove against the estate of her husband a claim for money lent by her to him from her separate estate, and used by him in his business.
We do not think that either objection can be sustained. The first fails for want of proof. The case shows that the claimant's father, A. E. Houghton, and his wife, had been living in the family of the debtor for some time prior to his going into insolvency; but it does not show any contract, express or implied, by which Houghton is liable for his support either to the debtor or to the claimant The inference is rather to the contrary, taking into account the relationship of the parties, and also certain pecuniary gifts or advancements which Houghton had made to the claimant and of which the insolvent had the use in whole or in part. Nor does the case show facts which we think should be regarded as fraudulent as to creditors., within the insolvent law.
The second objection presents the question whether a wife who holds a valid indebtedness against her husband can prove the same against his estate in insolvency. We have no doubt that she can. It is not claimed here that she may not lawfully contract with her husband, or that his note to her is not valid, or that the title to his note to a third person does not pass to her by sale or gift and indorsement Motley v. Sawyer, 34 Me. 540; Webster v. Webster, 58 Me. 139; Blake v. Blake, 04 Me. 177. But it is claimed that while the marriage relation continues she cannot enforce her claim by proving it against his insolvent estate. At common law a wife could not maintain an action at law against her husband. And it has been held that while the marital relation continues her rights in this respect have not been...
To continue reading
Request your trial