McCubbin v. Patterson

A laborer was employed on condition that he would abstain from drink, and would allow his wife to draw his wages, to be used in support of himself, and wife and children. The wages were paid on this condition, every six months, a part having been drawn by the wife to support the family, and the balance deposited in a savings bank, in the name of the employer, for the wife. In the course of time, the balances so deposited, amounted, with interest, to a considerable sum, and constitute the fund in dispute. It does not appear that the husband directed or ever knew of the form in which the deposit was made. Held: That the condition and arrangement under which the wife was permitted to draw these wages, and the circumstance of the deposit, gave her no right to this fund as her separate estate, so that she could dispose of it by will or otherwise. An agreement made in 1843, between husband and wife, stated, that they had separated, and that a certain fund was claimed by each, and to adjust this dispute it was agreed that the fund should remain as it stood, and that §75 per year should be paid therefrom to each of the parties during their joint lives, and §120 per year to the survivor during life, and upon the death of both, the balance of the fund then remaining should be paid to their children and their representatives equally, to be divided between them. The husband died in 1850, and the wife in 1853. Held: That this agreement was binding on the husband, if not on both, and the wife after his death, having received the sum specified therein up to her death, must be regarded in equity as having waived any right she may have had to any part of this fund, as widow, and to have adopted the agreement as between herself and the distributees of her husband, and as having agreed to be bound thereby; the fund, therefore, belongs to the children.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. The appellee, Patterson, on the 7th of June 1857, filed his bill of interpleader, against the several defendants and claimants of a fund oo deposit, subject to his order, in the Savings Bank of Baltimore, in which, after setting out all the circumstances of the origin of the fund, he prays to be protected against (he conflicting claims pressed upon him, and that to that end he be allowed to pay the money into court, and the parties defendants being (here decreed to interplead, that he be dismissed with his costs and charges; all of which was decreed as prayed, and the complainant Patterson was dismissed from the proceedings. The bills set out that, in 1820, the complainant and Joseph W. Patterson, as the firm of J. W. & E. Patterson, were carrying on an iron rolling mill on the Gunpowder river, in Baltimore county, and that among the hands in their employ was one William Woollen, who, though a competent workman, they had determined, on account of intemperance, to discharge, but concluded to retain in their employ on a verbal arrangement between him and them, that instead of his wages, as they thereafter became due, being paid to him, (when they would be squandered,) they should remain in complainant’s hands, to be held by him subject to the order of Providence Woollen, the wife of William, or be deposited by complainant in the Savings Bank of Baltimore, in complainant’s name, for said Providence, “the intention of the parties to the arrangement, being to create and preserve a fund for the maintenance of William, his wife and children, as well as to take from him the temptation to and means of intemperance. ’ ’ The bill states that this arrangement was acted on, and as William’s wages became due they were paid to and retained by the complainant, to be applied as stated. That some years after this arrangement, Woollen and his wife ceased to live together, though no legal separation ever took place, and a dispute having arisen between them as to whom certain moneys, then in the hands of complainant, as also others deposited in the Savings Bank of Baltimore, belonged, an agreement of compromise was entered into, dated the 23rd of May 1843, and which is filed with the bill, as Exhibit A. The bill then pioceods to state the material parts of this agreement or compromise, admitting its statement that, at its date, there was on deposit in said Saving's Bank, in complainant’s name, for the use of Priscilla or Providence Woollen, the sum of $2832.20, and also, in his hands, the further sum of $239.48, and alleges that both William and his wife acted upon this agreement during their joint, lives, and that Mrs. Woollen, who survived him by a few years, continued to act upon it to the time of her death, and that all its requirements have been complied with, except that contained in the fourth clause, which the complainant is unable to carry out for the reasons stated, and which induced him to file this, his bill of interpleader. That William Woollen died in 1850, it is believed, without administration upon his estate, and his widow, Providence, died about July 1853. That after her death, her children by the marriage with Woollen, all of whom or whose representatives are parties to the bill, claimed the distribution of the fund among them under this agreement, but that iu the period between the death of her husband and her own death, she had made two wills, by the latter of which, revoking all former wills, she bequeathed to Thomas McCubbin and'wife all her estate, and these parties claim the fund by virtue of such bequest. Agreement A, filed with the bill, is as follows: “Articles of agreement, made and concluded this 23rd day of May 1843, by and between William Woollen, of Baltimore county, of the one part, and Priscilla Woollen, his wife, of the other part. Whereas, a separation has taken place between the said parties; and whereas, there is deposited in the Savings Bank of Baltimore, in the name of Edward Patterson, for the said Priscilla Woollen, the sum of $2832.20, which fund is claimed by both of the parties to this agreement; and there is also in the hands of the said Edward Patterson, the sum of $239.48, which is also claimed by said parties; and whereas, they are anxious and willing to adjust all matters in dispute between them amicably, they have mutually agreed to the following terms, to wit: «1st. That the deposit in the Savings Bank shall be continued in the name of Edward Patterson, as it at present stands. «2nd. That from the moneys nowin the hands of the said Edward Patterson, there shall be paid to each of the parties to this agreement, the sum -of $75, on the day of the signing of this agreement, and the ‘balance shall be deposited in the Savings Bank, in the name above mentioned. «3d. There shall be paid to each of the said parties during the term of their natural life, annually on the first day of April in each and every year, the sum of $75, out of the moneys so as aforesaid deposited in the Savings Bank, and that upon the death of either party, there shall be paid annually to the survivor, the sum of $120, out of the moneys aforesaid. «4th. Upon the death of both of the said parties, the balance of the said moneys then remaining in the Savings Bank, shall be paid over by the said Edward Patterson, to the children of the said William Woollen, and Priscilla, his wife, or to their representatives, equally to be divided between them. «5th. That (he said Edward Patterson is requested to give orders to each of the parties hereto in pursuance of this agreement, and as the mutual friend of both parties to carry this agreement into effect. «6th. That in consequence of the death of Parker Everett, the son-in-law of the said parties, leaving a widow and four or five infant children, there shall be paid annually, to the said William Woolen, for the support of the said widow and children, the sum of $50. For Wm. Woollen, ' Edw’d Patterson. For Priscilla Woollen, William F. Giles.” The answers of the other parties, except McCubbin and wife, admit the allegations of the bill, and submit to a distribution of the fund under the fourth clause of Agreement A.. McCubbin and wife, in their answer, deny the origin of the fund as stated in the bill, and assert that the greater portion of it arose from the earnings and savings of Providence Woollen. They deny the validity of the supposed agreement or contract of the 23rd of May 1843, and aver that, even if that agreement was signed with the approbation of said Providence, which they do not admit, and acquiesced in by her during the life of William Woollen, it would not be binding upon her or her legal representatives, she being a feme covert at the time, and they deny that after the death of her husband, she did any act which could be regarded as an approval or ratification of this supposed agreement. They further aver, that the whole of this fund legally belonged to said Providence, and was not, m any manner, affected by the-supposed agreement of May 1843, and that Thomas McOubbiu, the executor of the last will of said Providence, is tho* party entitled to receive the same, to bo by him distributed; according to the terms of said will. Testimony was then taken oil both sides, the purport of which sufficiently appears from the following opinion of the court below, (Krebs, .1.) delivered upon passing the decree appealed from: “The defendants, claiming-under the second will of Providence Woollen, filed in this case, claim the fund in controversy as a part of her personal estate, having been settled, as; they allege upon her by her husband, in his life time, as her sole and separate estate. It is a fund on deposit in the Savings Bank of Baltimore, in the name of “Edward Pattersons for Mrs. Providence WoolenThis fact, unexplained,, might furnish some ground for this claim. But the evidence; shows clearly, I think, that this fund accrued exclusively from the wages of her husband, Wm. Woolen, earned in the employment of Messrs. J. W. & E. Patterson. It having been, his money before it was deposited, those who claim it as her separate property, must show something more than the mere-deposit in the above form, to establish the claim. They must show that it was so deposited with his assent, or in pursuance oí his order and direction, for the purpose of thus making it her separate property. The circumstances under which it became deposited in the Savings Bank, are fully explained by Mr. Joseph W. Patterson, one of the witnesses. He states . that Mr. Woolen having been in the employment of the above firm, was discharged from their service iii consequence’ of intemperate habits, and that they consented to re-employ him, on condition that he would abstain from drink, ‘and to guarantee that, and as a provision, ¡or Ids family, he would allow his vAfe to draw his wages; this condition Was made by witness, that his wife should draw his wages, to be used in the !support of himself and wife and children A This ‘Witness also proves, that after this arrangement, ‘h:s wages-were paid on the above condition;’ that ‘the hands were settled with every six months; after, or at the time of each settlement,- MrsiSjWoolen would bring to Baltimore a certificate' of the balance due her husband and children, (,having drawn in the meantime part of the tuages, to support the family,) which, balance ¡vi ns, placed in the Savings Bank, in the name of Edward Patterson, for Mrs. Providence Woolen.’ “I am clearly of opinion, that the condition and arrangement under which, by the agreement of Mr. Woolen, his-wife was permitted to draw these wages, gave her no right to-claim the money that accrued therefrom, as her separate property; that there was no agreement on his part that she should have it as such; but only that she should use it in the -sapport of himself, his wife and children, and, preserve it from being squandered by him in the indulgence of his unfortunate habits. The deposit in the Bank in the form ire which it was made, was no part of the condition under 'which it was agreed that she should receive these wages; but it appears to have resulted from the circumstance, that a considerable surplus was left after the application of these moneys-to the purposes specially contemplated. Nor does it appear 'that he directed, or ever knew, the form in which the deposit was made. I am of opinion, therefore, that there was nothing in the terms .of this arrangement as originally made, or in-the circumstances of the deposit, that gave to Mrs. Woolen '■any such right in rhis property as that she could dispose of it '■'by last will and testament, or otherwise. This was a family arrangement, prompted by the humane feelings of the Messrs, Patterson, and having in view the most praiseworthy purposes, and one of those arrangements which a court of equity will aid in carrying into execution, so far as it can be done. It undoubtedly contemplated that these parties should continue to live together as man and wife, and no doubt the benefits to enure from it to the wife would have been forfeited by her if she had deserted her husband, or separated from him without justifiable cause. A separation, however, did in fact take place. In consequence thereof, and of a controversy between those parties in regard to this fund, the agreement of May 23rd, 1843, filed with the proceedings, was entered into between them. This instrument I must regard as binding upon the husband, whatever doubts may be entertained in regard to its effect upon the rights of his wife. As she had, according to the view that T have taken of her rights, no interest ill the fund, except what arose from her title to enjoy it, in common with her husband and their children, as originally provided for, there could be no serious objection to the provisions of that writing, unless they varied substantially the terms of the arrangement, so as to render them less favorable for her. It does not appear clearly that they7 have any such effect. “The agreement adopts the principle of the original arrangement, substituting in lieu of the application of the money arising from the wages, by the wife, to the support of her husband, herself, and their children, the payment of specific sums out of it, to them severally during their joint lives, and of a larger sum to the survivor, and of the balance to their children. Conceding that it is doubtful, whether this instrument of writing, so bound this married woman, as to have precluded her from insisting, upon the death of her husband, that what then remained of this fund, should he regarded as a part of his personal estate, in which she was entitled to her distributive share, yet inasmuch as she did not then take that ground and claim to have it divided between herself and his personal representatives, in which event they would have had the immediate enjoyment of their respective shares, but, preferred, her disability being then entirely removed, to receive annually the sum specified iu the agreement to be paid to her, up to the time of her death, as the evidence shows she did, she must in my opinion, be regarded, in equity, as having waived any supposed rights she might have had as distributee of her husband’s personal estate, and as having adopted, as between herself and the distributees, the terms of this written agreement, and as having agreed to be bound thereby. She seems to have preferred the chances of what she might have received during her life time, in these annual payments, to any absolute share of the fund. And it would not be just, after she had selected this alternative, which might have deferred the enjoyment of their shares, by the husband’s personal representatives, to a very distant day, to permit those who represent her, now that her life has terminated sooner than might have been expected, to insist that she had rights as a distributee of this fund, in the character of the widow of the deceased, for this is the most favorable view that could be taken of her rights in reference thereto, being satisfied as I am, that she had no claim to it, as her separate estate. I am of opinion, therefore, that this fund belongs to the children of William Woolen, and Providence his wife, the parties referred to in the 4th article of the said instrument of writing.” A decree was then passed, directing the fund in court to be paid to the children and representatives of -deceased children, of William and Providence Woolen, and from this decree McCubbin and wife appealed.