Dimond v. Sanderson

California Supreme Court Jun 13, 1894 No. No. 15359Published

Before: Haynes

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The mere existence of a marital relationship does not create a presumption of undue influence or lack of consideration in a contract between spouses; the party seeking to invalidate a written instrument must first prove that an unfair advantage was obtained.

Issues

Does the confidential relationship of husband and wife shift the burden of proof to the plaintiff to show sufficient consideration for a promissory note?
Must a defendant provide evidence of unfair advantage or lack of consideration to overcome the presumption of validity afforded to a written instrument?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The relation of husband and wife is not that of trustee and beneficiary, though it is a confidential relation”

“The burden of showing a want of consideration sufficient to support an instrument lies with the party seeking to invalidate or avoid it.”

“before the presumption contended for can apply it must appear that plaintiff, in obtaining the note sued upon, obtained some advantage over the defendant”

Synopsis

Action Upon Note—Husband and Wipe—Burden of Proof—Consideration—Undue Influence.—The burden of proving a sufficient consideration for a note, and that it was not given under undue influence, is not thrown upon the plaintiff in an action thereon merely because it appears that plaintiff and defendant were husband and wife at the time the note was given.

Id.—Presumption—Proof of Advantage Taken.—In order that the presumption may arise that a transaction between a husband and wife, by which one has obtained an advantage over the other, was entered into without sufficient consideration, and under undue influence, it must appear upon the face of the transaction, or by proof, that there was no consideration, or that the marital confidence was used to take an unfair advantage, or that the confidence was subsequently violated.

Id.—Mote Mo Proof of Advantage or Trust—Consideration Implies. Possession of a note given by the husband to the wife is not of itself evidence that any advantage had been obtained, and the giving of it does not indicate a trust; hut the note is an ordinary contract, which implies a consideration.

Haynes, C. This action was brought upon a promissory note made by the defendant June 1,1888, whereby he promised to pay Lydia Emma Sanderson six thousand dollars at twenty-four months after date, with interest payable monthly. The complaint is in the usual form, except that it alleges “ that Lydia Emma Sander-son was the name of the plaintiff prior to her marriage with Henry P. Dimond on the twenty-fifth day of June, 1890; that the name of the plaintiff is now Lydia Emma Dimond, and that the subject matter of this action concerns and is the separate property of the plaintiff.”

Defendant’s answer contained three defenses: 1. Admitted the making and delivery of the note, but denied that any thing remained unpaid, due or owing thereon, or that he was indebted thereon; 2. That he received no consideration for the note; and 3. That at the time the note was made the plaintiff and defendant were husband and wife; alleged certain misconduct of the wife, that her affections were alienated by another, that he gave the note under certain promises made by the plaintiff, which were not kept, and with a view to regain her affections, an°d upon no other consideration; that she remained with him but a short time; that he procured a divorce in December, 1889, and that plaintiff and Dimond intermarried in June, 1890.

Upon the trial the plaintiff testified in chief that defendant, was her former husband, and that certain payments, and no other, had been made upon the note.

Upon cross-examination she stated her maiden name, that she was married to defendant in 1877, and that she and defendant were husband and wife until December 29, 1889.

Plaintiff put the note in evidence, and rested, and the defendant offered no evidence. Findings and judgment were in favor of plaintiff, and the defendant appeals from the judgment upon the judgment-roll and a bill of exceptions setting out the evidence above stated.

[100]Appellant insists that the plaintiff failed to make out her case, because it appeared that she and defendant were husband and wife at the time the note was given, and that that fact threw upon her the burden of proving a sufficient consideration for the note, and that it was not given under undue influence.

This contention he bases upon the following provisions of the Civil Code:

“ Sec. 158. Either husband or wife may enter into any engagement or transaction with the other, or with any other person, respecting property, which either might if unmarried; subject, in transactions between themselves, to the general rules which control the actions of persons occupying confidential relations with each other, as defined by the title on trusts;”

Dimond v. Sanderson

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief