## Facts

- Lottie Lenn, an art student/teacher and writer, claimed ownership of a Piero di Cosimo painting and several Renaissance medallions.
- Paul B. Bonn, Lenn’s uncle, was wealthy and maintained an art collection; he told Lenn he wanted to leave her “security” in valuables and arranged that the painting and medallions would belong to her.
- While Bonn lived in France, Lenn delivered the items to him in France under an oral agreement that he would safeguard them and return them on her request.
- Bonn displayed the items in Paris and later placed them in a bank vault for safekeeping during wartime conditions.
- Bonn died in France in 1941; under French succession law, his widow was the universal legatee and was described as succeeding to his property and being personally liable for his obligations.
- The items were not returned to Lenn after the war; Lenn (then residing in Massachusetts) sued the Massachusetts ancillary administrator of Bonn’s estate to recover the value of the lost items.
- A jury returned a substantial verdict for Lenn on a contract theory; the defendant sought a directed verdict and a new trial, both denied.

## Issues

1. Whether the oral arrangement made in France constituted an enforceable contractual bailment (“loan for use”) under French law obligating return on demand.
2. Whether French law permitted proof of the high-value bailment by oral testimony under a “moral impossibility” exception to a general writing requirement.
3. Whether the estate established a French-law force majeure defense excusing nonreturn based on wartime loss.
4. Whether Lenn could proceed in Massachusetts against the ancillary administrator to reach Massachusetts estate assets, notwithstanding the widow’s status as universal legatee under French law.
5. Whether the evidence and trial rulings permitted the verdict to stand and justified denial of a directed verdict and new trial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court overruled the defendant’s exceptions and left the plaintiff’s verdict intact.
- The evidence warranted a finding, under French law, of a “loan for use” requiring Bonn to safeguard the property and return it upon demand.
- The jury could find that French law allowed oral proof because the parties’ intimate relationship made it morally impossible for Lenn to insist on written evidence.
- The jury was warranted in rejecting the force majeure defense; the defendant bore the burden to prove an excusing cause and did not compel a finding in its favor.
- The action properly lay against the Massachusetts ancillary administrator to reach Massachusetts assets of the estate, even if French law also provided a route against the universal legatee abroad.
- No reversible error required a directed verdict or a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- When an obligation is created in a foreign jurisdiction, Massachusetts applies the foreign substantive law to determine the obligation’s nature and validity, including foreign rules governing the need for written proof and recognized exceptions.
- Under French law as proved, a “loan for use” is a contractual bailment imposing a duty to keep another’s property and return it on demand, with the bailee bearing responsibility for nonreturn absent an excusing cause.
- Under French law as applied, an exception to a writing requirement may permit oral proof where the relationship between the parties made obtaining a writing morally impossible.
- A force majeure defense under French law places on the bailee (or the estate standing in the bailee’s position) the burden to prove an unavoidable excusing event causing the loss.
- A claimant may sue a Massachusetts ancillary administrator to satisfy a valid claim from Massachusetts-based estate assets, even if foreign succession law assigns broad responsibility to a universal legatee.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a jury verdict enforcing a French-law bailment proven by oral evidence under a “moral impossibility” exception, rejected an inadequately supported force majeure defense, and confirmed that a Massachusetts ancillary administrator may be sued to reach local estate assets for a claim arising from a foreign obligation.


Lenn v. Riche, 331 Mass. 104, 117 N.E.2d 129 (1954)