Wyman v. Whitehouse
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On report. In view of the fact that it is conclusively proven by the evidence, that all the use which the intestate ever had of his wife’s estate was in common with her, there can arise no implied promise on his part to repay anything which he may have enjoyed in common with his wife. He is presumed to be acting for her. Morton v. Craig, 68 Maine, 275. Money had and received, the only proper form of action to bring in this case.
Read the full summary
On report. In view of the fact that it is conclusively proven by the evidence, that all the use which the intestate ever had of his wife’s estate was in common with her, there can arise no implied promise on his part to repay anything which he may have enjoyed in common with his wife. He is presumed to be acting for her. Morton v. Craig, 68 Maine, 275. Money had and received, the only proper form of action to bring in this case. Merrill v. Crossman, 68 Maine, 413 ; R. S., c. 66, § 14. A writ against one personally may be amended by leave of court so as to charge him in his capacity as…
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, C. J.
The plaintiff, as indorsee, sues the estate of Lucy Wyman, deceased, to recover the following note: "Vassalboro, February 24, 1853. For value received, I promise *262to pay Edward G. Wyman, or order, six hundred dollars with interest annually, payable at my death out of my estate. (Signed) Lucy Wyman.” This is a copy of the note as originally given. The note at some time was indorsed to the plaintiff. The original parties to the note, both now deceased, were at its date, husband and wife. On the same paper on which the note was written, the following was also written and signed by the wife. "The…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- In re BlandinDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1871
3Cited by1 opinion
- Miller v. HandySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1881