Hutchinson v. Dennis
Hutchinson v. Dennis
Opinion of the Court
The learned judge below rightly held that as to the money deposited in the saving funds in the name of the wife, the common pleas would have jurisdiction on a proper bill to determine that it was in fact the property of the husband. But the husband having taken out letters of administration on the wife’s estate and thereby possessed himself, “ got control ” of the money, he had brought himself within the jurisdiction of the orphans’ court and should have his title to the money adjudicated there.
The claim that the real estate in the wife’s name was in fact the complainant’s by virtue of a resulting trust from the payment of the purchase money, and his claim to rescind his conveyance of other real estate to his children as procured by undue advantage taken of his ignorance, were proper bases of equity jurisdiction. It does not appear that he was in actual possession, and therefore the acts of 1893 have no apparent application. But even if they were applicable the remedy under them would not be exclusive. Where equity has jurisdiction, it is not taken away by a subsequent jurisdiction conferred on courts of law.
But the two claims were essentially distinct and rested on different grounds. Each must be adjudicated on its own evidence without any reference to the other. The bill was multifarious in joining them, and the demurrer was properly sustained on that ground.
Decree affirmed.
Reference
- Cited By
- 12 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Equity — Equity practice — Multifariousness■—Husband and wife. A bill in equity by a father against his children is bad for multifariousness, which prays (1) that money deposited in a saving fund in the name of complainant’s deceased wife should be declared in fact the property of the husband; (2) that certain real estate in the wife’s name should be declared in fact to be complainant’s by virtue of a resulting trust from the payment of the purchase money; and (3) that the conveyance of certain other real estate to his children should be rescinded on the ground that it was procured by undue advantage taken of his ignorance. Where a husband has taken out letters of administration on his deceased wife’s estate, and has taken possession of money deposited in a saving fund in the name of his wife, he cannot thereafter by a bill in equity against his children seek to have the ownership of such money established in himself. Having brought himself within the jurisdiction of the orphans’ court, he must have his title to the money adjudicated there. Ejectment — Rule to bring ejectment — Acts of May 25, 1893, P. L. 131 and June 10, 1893, P. L. 415. The Acts of May 25, 1893, P. L. 131 and June 10, 1893, P. L. 415, giving a right to a person in possession of real estate to compel one out of possession but claiming title, to bring an ejectment, are not exclusive of the remedy by a bill in equity. Where equity has jurisdiction, it is not taken away by a subsequent jurisdiction conferred on courts of law.