Adado v. Assid
| Decision Date | 06 March 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 18,18 |
| Citation | 332 Mich. 628,52 N.W.2d 355 |
| Parties | ADADO v. ASSID et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
William C. Brown, Lansing, for plaintiff and appellant.
Benjamin F. Watson, Lansing (Claude J. Marshall, Lansing, of counsel), for defendants and appellees.
Before the Entire Bench.
Anna Adado of Lansing, Michigan, died testate on October 3, 1947, and her will dated February 20, 1940, and her will probate. It had been drawn by the late Fred L. Warner, an able lawyer of that city and witnessed by him and Harry Lebuda, a Lansing insurance agent. Under the will the entire estate, inventoried at over $90,000, was left to four nephews and one niece, all children of decedent's late brother, Harry Assid. They, together with one of them, Alfred Assid, who was appointed administrator with will annexed, were made defendants herein in a bill filed by Kamil F. Adado, frequently called and referred to as Tom, who is the younger brother of decedent's husband Masood F. Adado who died on March 14, 1934.
Plaintiff asked specific performance of a verbal agreement alleged to have been made between decedent and himself on the evening of the day of his brother's funeral. It appeared that immediately after Masood Adado's funeral the family, including plaintiff, repaired to decedent's home where they had coffee and a light lunch. All of the parties are of Syrian descent and speak Arabic part of the time, and for this reason some difficulty was encountered in translating he conversation of the evening. Decedent was disconsolate and weeping part of the time. She and her late husband in their joint names had accumulated properties of the value of $50,000, or thereabouts, but they were mortgaged for $17,000 or $18,000. The depression was on at that time. In all probability the widow's plight was discussed. It was claimed that she asked the family to help her but the only one who could do so was plaintiff, who at that time was not working full days at his automobile factory job. The late Masood F. Adado had paid the passage money for and had brought plaintiff to this country, and he and decedent had raised him, regarding him almost as their own son. There was no doubt that the latter was grateful and anxious to help. Plaintiff alleges that decedent agreed to leave onehalf of her estate to him in consideration for his assisting her with her business and property, she regarding one-half of the joint property as her late husband's share. She was also alleged to have stated that she would leave the other half to her own family. The proofs are extremely vague as to what plaintiff agreed to do.
The lengthy record is far from satisfactory. The lips of decedent are sealed by death; those of plaintiff and his wife by the dead man's statute. See C.L.1948, § 617.65, Stat.Ann. § 27.914. The testimony as to what took place immediately after the funeral, when the alleged contract was made, is very unsatisfactory particularly in view of the fact that the witnesses who were present are indirectly interested, they being children of plaintiff. One other witness was a sister of decedent and probably unfriendly to defendants because she was left out of the will. This court has pointed out many times that admissions of a decedent are the most unreliable proof known to the law and should be received with careful scrutiny, particularly when the testimony comes from interested witnesses. See, for example, Wild v. Wild, 266 Mich. 570, 254 N.W. 208; Paris v. Scott, 267 Mich. 400, 255 N.W. 216; Hope v. Detroit Trust Co., 275 Mich. 213, 266 N.W. 326; Schulz v. Steffey, 275 Mich. 409, 266 N.W. 399; Kerns v. Kerns, 303 Mich. 23, 5 N.W.2d 552; Daugherty v. Poppen, 316 Mich. 430, 25. N.W.2d 580.
There was some testimony that decedent had stated that one-half of the property was plaintiff's, but one of the property was speaking of the time when something had gone wrong with a furnace in a building belonging to the estate admitted that plaintiff had told decedent to do as she saw fit as it was her business. In addition, the fact that at all other times the decedent did not consult plaintiff as to any of the details of the property he supposedly owned half of indicates the truth to be a far cry from the claim that he was considered to be the owner of half the property.
Decedent worked very hard throughout the years on her property, even at times doing manual labor. She had a restaurant, then a tavern where beer and wine as well as soft drinks were sold. Plaintiff and other members of the family occasionally helped wait on customers and work around the tavern. She did almost all the work and built up her estate, the debts were paid off, and it almost doubled in size. When decedent was sick the business was closed. She also acquired several additional pieces of property. Plaintiff had a full time job at an automobile plant most of the time and was able to devote only spare time to decedent's business. There is proof in the record that at one time some work was ordered by plaintiff and he paid for it but there was no showing that he did not get the money from decedent. It would seem extremely unlikely without other proof that he advanced his own moneys at any time without being repaid. There was also some testimony that he did a few odd jobs over the many years but they were such that he might be willing to do because of a deep family obligation.
The circuit court in summarizing plaintiff's contribution to decedent's business stated:
It would serve no useful purpose to detail the mass of testimony. Upon our examination of the receord, we find that but little can be added. The testimony is extremely unsatisfactory and the judge expressed himself as being far from convinced that there was either a contract in the first place or that plaintiff had furnished adequate consideration. The court referred to the case of Daugherty v. Poppen, supra [316 Mich. 430, 25...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kopprasch v. Stone
...contracting parties cannot testify, their acts loom large as compared with what witnesses say that said."" See, also, Adado v. Assid, 332 Mich. 628, 631, 52 N.W.2d 355. This being an equity case we hear it de novo on the record made in the trial court. Because of the nature of the testimony......
-
Kent v. Bell
...Said statement was quoted with approval in Daugherty v. Poppen, 316 Mich. 430, 441, 25 N.W.2d 580, and also in Adado v. Assid, 332 Mich. 628, 633, 52 N.W.2d 355. It does not appear from the bill of complaint in the case at bar that plaintiff was relying on any claim of fraud on the part of ......
-
Ouellette v. Belanger, 13
...and took from him that which she had agreed to give him, that she did exactly what is contemplated in this case of Adado versus Assid, supra (332 Mich. 628 ), and other cases of similar 'In other words, I would say that her conduct down there when she changed that will was not only misleadi......