Rau v. Von Zedlitz
| Decision Date | 05 January 1882 |
| Citation | 132 Mass. 164 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Robert J. Rau v. Catherine B. Von Zedlitz & others |
Decree affirmed, with costs.
This case was argued in November 1880, and reargued in November 1881, by A. D. Chandler, for the plaintiff, and by N. Morse & J. L. Thorndike, for the defendants.
This is a bill in equity, under the Gen. Sts. c. 113 § 2, cl. 11, brought against the Baron and Baroness Von Zedlitz and the trustee under her marriage settlement. The plaintiff alleges therein that the Baroness is indebted to him upon two drafts, accepted by her at Dresden, in Saxony, on the day previous to her marriage, which are now due and unpaid, and he seeks to obtain a decree, that the trustee of the marriage settlement shall apply to the payment of the drafts so much of the trust fund as is necessary.
The defence is, that the acceptance of the drafts was forced upon the Baroness by threats and undue influence, and is therefore invalid, and cannot be enforced in a court of equity; and that, under the provisions of the marriage settlement, the fund cannot be applied to the payment of these drafts.
As the case is presented to us, no question arises upon the second branch of the defence. The presiding judge heard the case on the evidence, and dismissed the bill, on the ground that the acceptance of the drafts was obtained by threats and undue influence; from his decision the plaintiff appeals, and the evidence upon which the finding is based is reported.
Upon a careful examination of the evidence, we cannot say that the decision upon the question of undue influence is erroneous. The record is voluminous, but the principal and material facts are as follows: The Baroness Von Zedlitz, whose maiden name was Kelsey, and who was a native of this Commonwealth, was married on April 12, 1877. While travelling in Europe she became engaged, in December 1876, to the Baron Von Zedlitz. She possessed considerable property in her own right, and a marriage settlement was prepared here at her request, and sent to Dresden the following April. It was executed by her and her intended husband on April 10, two days before her marriage. The Baron Von Zedlitz was at that time largely indebted to the plaintiff, and there was evidence that some of the money was advanced to the Baron upon the promise by him to repay the plaintiff on his marriage with Miss Kelsey, whom he represented to be possessed of a large fortune. On April 9, the plaintiff went to Dresden for the purpose of obtaining from Miss Kelsey payment of his debt. Being informed of the marriage settlement, he endeavored without success to persuade the Baron to prevent its execution. On the following day, which was April 11, Miss Kelsey was induced to go to the office of a notary public, to make some arrangement about a sum of money, which the Baron's mother, Mrs. Von Winning, informed her the Baron owed to the plaintiff. She went, accompanied by the Baron and his mother, about five o'clock in the afternoon, and found there the notary, the plaintiff, another creditor of the Baron by the name of Muller, and Mr. Von Winning. An interpreter was also present during the interview, which continued till eight o'clock. And the evidence reported relates chiefly to what then took place.
She was told that the Baron was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of 15,000 marks, and she was requested to sign the drafts to that amount, copies of which are annexed to the bill. It appears in the evidence that she refused, saying that it was impossible; that she had no money, and that she had parted with all her property. She was solicited again and again to sign the drafts, and was told by Mrs. Von Winning that, if she did not, disagreeable consequences would follow; that, unless the drafts were signed, the marriage on the following day would not take place; that the police would prevent their leaving their dwelling, or would stop them at the door of the church; and that the whole affair would be published in the newspapers. It also appears from the testimony of the plaintiff, that he intended to have the Baron arrested unless Miss Kelsey paid the debt. She desired to leave the room, and was told that she could not go until the matter was arranged. Upon the suggestion being made that Mr. Lehman, a lawyer who had been employed in connection with the settlement, might be sent for, it was opposed by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff could not speak English, and Miss Kelsey could not speak German, and Mrs. Von Winning, who spoke English, appears to have been the medium of communication between them, and was passing from one to the other during the interview. There was evidence that a portion of the money lent by the plaintiff to the Baron had been received by her, and it is evident that she was very desirous that Miss Kelsey should sign the drafts; and the presiding judge might well find, upon the evidence reported, that she was acting in behalf of the plaintiff, or in collusion with him, in persuading Miss Kelsey to sign, before the magistrate, the acceptances and other documents, among them a protocol, so called.
During this time Miss Kelsey was very much excited, and at the last of it was in tears, and there was evidence that she fainted. She stated in her testimony, "I think for a moment or two I must have lost consciousness, for the first thing I knew the Baron was holding me at an open window, and somebody gave me a glass of water;" and again, "I was so worn out and tired and overcome, that just as soon as I recovered consciousness, which I lost, Mrs. Von Winning came up to me and said, 'Now you had better sign,' and I thought at that time that I would do almost anything she asked me, and so I consented." She then signed the acknowledgment of the indebtedness of the Baron, and the agreement that she would assume and pay it, and also signed the drafts. This was near eight o'clock. While in the room she paid some money to Rau and also to Muller, and there was a violent altercation between the Baron and Muller, during which the Baron seized Muller and shook him. It also appears that Miss Kelsey was of a nervous and excitable temperament, and not familiar with business or the care of property.
There was conflicting evidence in regard to what took place before the notary. But we are of opinion that the presiding judge, before whom the case was heard, and who saw the principal witnesses, namely, the plaintiff and the Baron and Baroness, might well find that the acceptance of the drafts was forced upon Miss Kelsey by threats and undue influence. The contract she entered into was without consideration, and it was purely a question of fact whether she was induced to sign it by threats and undue persuasions, and through fear that her marriage would be prevented. This in equity will constitute a good defence to the bill. Upon an appeal from a decree of a single justice, on a question of fact, the evidence being reported, the full court will not reverse the decision, unless it appears clearly to be erroneous. Reed v. Reed, 114 Mass. 372. Montgomery v. Pickering, 116 Mass. 227. See also Singer Manuf. Co. v. Loog, 18 Ch. D. 395, 427.
A young woman, upon the eve of her marriage and in a strange country requested and urged to assume and pay the debts of her intended husband, being led to believe, if she does not comply with the solicitations pressed upon her, that her marriage may be prevented, her intended husband arrested, and the whole affair published in the newspapers, certainly is the object of undue and improper influence; and in yielding to it at last, after long resistance, and without independent advice, cannot be said to be acting as a free and voluntary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peaslee v. Peaslee
...back until the trial, did not necessarily conclude her. Watson v. Watson, 128 Mass. 152; Smith v. Holyoke, 112 Mass. 517; Rau v. Von Zedlitz, 132 Mass. 164. bill of exceptions states that all acts tending to show ratification after her husband's death were submitted to the jury with proper ......
-
Debinson v. Emmons
...122 Mass. 471; Newton v. Baker, 125 Mass. 30, 33; Holmes v. Bank, 126 Mass. 353, 358; Association v. Cory, 129 Mass. 435; Rau v. Von Zedlitz, 132 Mass. 164; Chase Hubbard, 153 Mass. 91, 26 N.E. 433. The doctrine that gifts causa mortis take their effect from delivery, and require actual del......
-
O'day v. Bowker
... ... Gibbs, ... 132 Mass. 240,) and the findings of fact cannot be revised, ( ... Wiley v. Hoyt, 120 Mass. 166;) and, even were the ... evidence reported, the decision of the single justice would ... not be reversed unless clearly erroneous, (Rau v. Von ... Zedlitz, 132 Mass. 164, 167; Reed v. Reed, 114 ... Mass. 372; Boston Music Hall Co. v. Cory, 129 Mass ... 435.) But in this case the decision is not erroneous, and the ... decree conforms to the allegations and prayer of the bill ... Gladwin v. French, 112 Mass. 186; Faxon v ... Wallace, 98 Mass ... ...
-
Peaslee v. Ross
...the claim of laches seems wholly untenable. Worcester v. Eaton, 13 Mass. 371; Montgomery v. Pickering, 116 Mass. 227; Rau v. Van Zedlitz, 132 Mass. 164. Upon the issues of title, conversion, duress, and laches, defendant was not entitled to go to the jury; for the auditor does not report al......