Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1918-03-06
MRS. SPRUANCE'S CLAIM
PARTLY SUSTAINED
An Interesting Opinion Handed
Down by Chancellor Charles
M. Curtis.

Chancellor Curtis has handed down an
opinion in the ease NJ Emma \ Spruaucc
w Equitable Trust 60. as executor Of
James Harvey Spruance, deceased.
Having come INTO possession uf lcency
from The estate of her father. amounting To
81 900, Mrs Spruancc spent 4ffb for hard
wood floors III the house which she and her
husband nr. SprtIance. occupied, owned
bv Dr Spriance She also gave him
81. 100. which was used ~ he purchase Of
two houses the doctor declaring nj that
time that he made The purchase with his
wifc's money, hut took decd 10 the
property IN his own nau" This property
was later sold ~ an advance If $40
At later period two eheeks for $500
and 800 respectively. wcrc drnwn m
favor Of Dr Sprnance
Dr Spr,ancc died last Nav entirely
solvent. and IN his will made provision for
his wife. but made no mention ~ anv
sums owing tn her Mrs Spruance sought
To have the executors repay the varions
amounts above mentioned
The Chancellor SAYS. IN his opinion
4 ndcr the allegations nf the bill. the
complainant ,s not entitled io repayment
Of the Si76 for hard wood floors II was
claimed to have been q loan Nv her to her
husband. which implies promise ri re-
paymcnt hut the presumption Is that the
cheek wns given for floors put down ~ Il he
husband dwelling house. which = quito
different thing from loan and neon
slstcnt Herewith
A. "a the g., 100 and the profits Of the
real catatc transaction. the Chancellor
holds that Mrs. Spruanoe ls entitled to
ho repaid, laying the principle that the
rcccipt and appropriate non by husband
of his wife 8 separate property with her
know ledge and acqulcsccnce docs not. IN
the nhacncc of mn understanding aud
agreement between them, create the re-
IatIon of debtor and creditor. hut II is
otherwise If he uses her sep plrate property
aS her agent IN the absence of such under
standing and agreement The evidence
shows that in the purchase and sale the
husband was acting as the agent OF hs
wifc Al the time Of purchase, and against
his own interest hc declared II was his
wlfc's money he was investing and II Is a
fair Inference that IT was an invcetmrnt
made for her. This creates either a trust
or m agency he result IS the same IN
either case His estate ~ liable to her for
the money or for the results of the use
thereof
As to the moneys paid 10 DIR Sprmncc
IN the amounts Of Si00 and $500. there
IS no evidence of the Use made thereof, or
any agency respecting II and none even
tending to show # il was a gift or put INTO
his hands for investment As Ia them,
therefore, it Is an imputed presumption.
# any there be, which would furnish the
only guide
After discussing the numerous cases IN
yolvIng similar situations IN many States,
the Chancellor savS. 1T seems clear that
the presumption Of either gif; or a loan
would bc rs likely to defeat as to carry
out the lIndisclosed intention, SO there IS
here no ground to presume a loan. no eyi-
dence Of any gift, or any fact excerpt pay
mcnt by wife to husband Ii is doubt tf,d
if any court ever implied right To re-
endorsement under such circumstances.
This case Is an illustration OF the I'M
portancc of a clear understanding IN finan-
ciai transactions between persons standing
in close relation to each other. Without
proper evidence OF the intentions OF the
parties, these intentions cannot be de-
termined The Chancellor, therefor, holds
that the payment To hun by her OF these
SUMS of her own money, without eN-
PLANTATION made or circumstances shown
concerning he transaction, or the use
made thereo by him does not show a loan
by her 10 h I'M or RAISE any equitable
:lSsurnpsit to return IT TO her, and she is not
entitled TO re payment thereof from hIs
estate