Bartlett v. Wright

Supreme Court of Illinois · Torts

TortsStatute of LimitationsHusband and WifeDeposits and Trust-like Possessionstatute of limitationsdemand and refusaldepositaryhusband and wife

Facts

In 1872, Virginia Wright and her husband, Robert Wright, sold land she had inherited from her father for $775. The evidence, consisting of Robert Wright's admissions, supported a finding that he received that money and later used it to pay for land titled in his own name. The record contained no direct evidence of the terms on which he received or held the money. Robert Wright died in August 1883, and Virginia Wright filed her claim against his estate on June 30, 1885.

Issue

When a husband receives and retains his wife's money, but the record does not show the terms of the transaction, does the statute of limitations begin to run immediately as on an ordinary debt or loan, or only after the wife makes a demand and the husband refuses or otherwise denies her right?

Rule

As a general rule, when one obtains another's money without any agreement as to repayment, the law implies a promise to repay at once or within a reasonable time, and limitations begin to run when such a promise may be implied. But where money is held as a deposit, in trust, or by a depositary or agent for the owner's use and benefit and subject to the owner's order, the holder's possession is lawful and the statute of limitations does not begin to run until demand and refusal, or some equivalent act. In the marital context, absent proof of a gift or other definite arrangement, it is a natural and reasonable inference that the husband received the wife's money for her use and benefit rather than as an immediate debt.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Peoria, Illinois, Lena Morris sold a parcel she had inherited and handed the proceeds to her husband, Daniel Morris. No one can prove whether the money was a gift, a loan, or merely to be kept for her; Daniel later used the money in his own farming operations, and Lena first asserted a claim against his estate more than ten years later.

If the estate argues the claim is time-barred because any obligation arose when Daniel received the money, what is the best response?

Explanation. The majority distinguished ordinary debtor-creditor situations from unexplained husband-wife transfers. Although the general rule implies prompt repayment when one receives another's money without repayment terms, an exception applies where the holder may be treated as a depositary or agent holding for the owner's use and benefit. In an unexplained marital transaction, the natural inference is not gift or immediate loan, but lawful holding for the wife's benefit, so the statute does not begin until demand and refusal or an equivalent denial.