Case Name: John McLean, administrator, vs. Addie C. Weeks
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1870
Citations: 61 Me. 277
Docket Number: 
Parties: John McLean, administrator, vs. Addie C. Weeks.
Judges: Kent, J., concurred; and Dickerson, Barrows, and Dan-forth, JJ., concurred in the result.
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 61
Pages: 277–298

Head Matter:
John McLean, administrator, vs. Addie C. Weeks.
Voluntary conveyance by intestate — void as to amount of debts due from Mm,
The administrator o£ an insolvent estate, in an action for money had and received, may recover for money given by Ms intestate after he became insolvent without a valuable consideration.
As such gift is valid as against the heirs of the giver, the donee is entitled to alt over the amount required for the payment of debts and expenses of administration.
It is for the administrator to show the amount of such debts and expenses, and ho is entitled to recover only that amount.
Plaintiffs attorney may administer the oath required by K. S., c. 113, § 2, to authorize the arrest of the defendant.
ON EXCEPTIONS.
This was an action of assumpsit for $700.00, money bad and received, brought by the plaintiff as administrator of the estate of William Woodman, deceased.
The writ was served by arrest of the defendant, an affidavit having been made upon the writ and sworn to by the plaintiff before Jason M. Carlton, Justice of the Peace, in the form prescribed in R. S., c. 118, § 2.
The writ was made and entered by Jason M. Carlton, attorney. Upon the second day of the first term the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the suit for want of legal service, and the court overruled the motion. 'i
It is admitted by defendant that plaintiff’s intestate, on the 3d day of December, 1868, gave and delivered the defendant the sum of $700.00 in consideration of love and affection simply, and that Woodman died Dee. 25, 1868.
The plaintiff offered to show by the proper .evidence that the estate of Woodman ivas rendered insolvent, and to prove that in fact it was insolvent at the time of the gift and of bis decease.
The court ruled that an action at law could not be maintained on the facts offered to be proved, and the plaintiff filed exceptions.
A. P. Grould, for the plaintiff.
1. The gift was voluntary, without valuable consideration. It was made in contemplation of approaching death, and intended as .a provision for the defendant and void as to creditors. Welcome v. Batchelder, 23 Maine, 85.
2. The administrator is the trustee and representative of creditors. If property has been placed in the hands of third persons, by his intestate, which of right ought to belong to the estate, it is his duty to take the necessary steps to recover it. Fletcher v. Holmes, 40 Maine, 364, 367, 368. The administrator may maintain an action at law to recover the $700.00. Martin v. Root, 17 Mass. 222. It appears here that Woodman was insolvent at the time of this gift, and consequently the whole amount will be necessary to pay the debts. It is therefore a stronger case than Martin v. Root.
3. The gift cannot be good in part and bad in part, for if the intestate was insolvent at the time of the gift and so continued till his death, it was wholly void. Therefore if the $700.00 exceeded the amount of the prior debts, outstanding at the time of his death, subsequent creditors would be entitled to the balance.
4. The authorities cited by defendant do not sustain the proposition that the only remedy is in equity. These cases show that the only instances in which a suit in'equity can be maintained by the administrator, to recover property or money transferred by a fraudulent or voluntary conveyance, are where there is a failure of proof to sustain an action at law.
5. As the estate could not have been represented insolvent until the proper inventory had been returned, it will be presumed that it was returned.
A. IAbloey, for the defendant.
In this case the gift to defendant was executed. It was for love and affection. It was not-made for the purpose of defrauding creditors. It is valid against everybody, unless Woodman was insolvent at the time it was made, and then against everybody except existing creditors. Beal v. Warren, 2 Gray, 447; Parhman v. Welch, 19 Pick. 237; Pelham v. Aldrich, 8 Gray, 515 ; Rollins v. Mowers, 25 Maine, 192 ; Webster v. Whitney, 25 Maine, 326.
1. An action at law cannot be maintained to recover back the donation. The proper remedy is in equity. The defendant has a right to retain all the donation not needed to pay the debts of the donor existing at the time of the gift. She has a right to be heard on the questions as to the amounts and dates of the debts, and the amount of the donor’s property at the time. These questions cannot be tried collaterally in an action at law. She can be heard in court on these questions only in a bill in equity. Gibbons, admr., v. Peeler, 8 Pick. 254; Holland v. Cruft, 20 Pick. 321.
2. If the suit at law can be maintained at all, it can be so only after the amounts of the claims against the estate have been fixed in some way so as to be conclusive on defendant, and the amount of asset's has been made certain, so that it shall appear, by proceedings duly had, how much of the donation is necessary for the payment of the creditors entitled to impeach the gift. Holland v. Cruft, before cited; Caswell v. Caswell, 28 Maine, 232 ; Pleieher v. Holmes, 40 Maine, 364.
No representation of insolvency was made before the commencement of the action. No proceedings by suit or otherwise had been had to fix the amount of claims against the estate, nor does it appear that the administrator had returned an inventory or settled an account by which the amount of the assets can be ascertained. Further, there is no offer to prove that any debt, existing at the time of the gift, is now outstanding, or was so at the decease of plaintiff’s intestate.
3. But if the action can be maintained on the facts, it should be abated on the motion filed on the ground that the affidavit of plaintiff, necessary to authorize defendant’s arrest, was certified by the attorney who made the writ and entered the suit in court.
The attorney is interested, and incompetent to certify the oath.

Opinion:
Appleton, C. J.
This is an action of assumpsit, brought by the administrator of the estate of William Woodman, to recover the sum of seven hundred dollars, given b}r said Woodman to the defendant a few days before his decease. The plaintiff offered to prove the insolvency of Woodman at the date of the gift, and that the estate was rendered insolvent and was so insolvent.
The presiding justice ruled upon the facts, offered to be proved that the action was not maintainable.
. The gift, as between the parties thereto and the heirs of the donor, was valid. So far as the rights of prior existing creditors are concerned it was fraudulent, or evidence from which the inference of fraud must be drawn.
The estate being insolvent, the creditors defrauded cannot institute suits against the donee for the recovery of the money given. The administrator must act for them. He is trustee. It is his duty to protect and enforce their rights. As to them the gift is void, and the money given should be in the hands of the administrator, as a part of the assets of the estate for the payment of its debts.
Assumpsit for money had and received is an equitable action. The gift being void, so far as the plaintiff acts for the creditors, he can recover on the money counts the amount in the defendant's hands, to be appropriated with the other property of his intestate, for the payment of the creditors entitled thereto and the necessary expenses of administration. The balance, if any, will belong to the defendant. Though the gift may be void as to creditors, it is valid as against the heirs oí' the giver. Abbott v. Tenney, 18 N. H. 110. It is for the administrator to show the amount required to pay the debts due from the estate to its several creditors, defrauded by his intestate, for that is all which he is - entitled to recover. The remainder, if any there be, belongs to the defendant.
The motion to dismiss cannot avail the defendant. It is not entitled in this suit. It will apply as well to any other cause on the docket as to this. It is not stated in the bill of exceptions that the oath was administered by the plaintiff's attorney, and if it had been, it is not readily perceived why lie was not as competent to administer it as any other magistrate. Exceptions sustained.
Kent, J., concurred; and Dickerson, Barrows, and Dan-forth, JJ., concurred in the result.