Adams v. Adams

• Decision Date: 10 December 1886
• Citation: 30 N.W. 795,70 Iowa 253
• Parties: ADAMS v. ADAMS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

70 Iowa 253

30 N.W. 795

ADAMS

v.ADAMS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

December 10, 1886.

Appeal from district court, Adams county.

Action in equity for the cancellation of a promissory note, and a mortgage on real estate given as security for the same. The district court entered a judgment in accordance with the prayer of the petition. Defendant appeals.Davis & Wells, for appellant.

Towner & Lucas, for appellee.

REED, J.

The plaintiff and defendant are children of Ebenezer Adams, who died in January, 1884, at the age of 94 years. He left surviving him the parties to this action, and five other children. For the last six months of his life he lived with plaintiff and Mrs. Chloe Weedon, another daughter. Previous to that, for about eight years, he had lived with another daughter, Sarah Hutchison. Some years before his death he executed a will by which he devised all the property of which he should be seized at the time of his death to plaintiff, Mrs. Weedon, and Mrs. Hutchison in equal shares. A short time before he died he executed to plaintiff a conveyance of the tract of land which is included in the mortgage in question, and which was all the real estate owned by him. No consideration was paid by plaintiff for this conveyance. Plaintiff did not place this deed of record until after the death of her father, and Mrs. Hutchison had no knowledge of the execution of the deed until after it was recorded. After the death of the father, plaintiff took possession of the personalproperty belonging to the estate, which was of the value of about $1,500. She also took possession of said will. Soon afterwards, Mrs. Hutchison began to inquire for the will, but plaintiff sought to impress her with the belief that their father had destroyed it before he died, and she sent it to defendant, who resided in the state of Illinois, and requested him to place it in the possession of a third party, to be retained until she should call for it. When Mrs. Hutchison learned of the existence of the deed from her father to plaintiff, she was greatly dissatisfied; and she made the claim that, owing to the weakness and imbecility of the father when he signed the deed, he was incapable of making a valid contract. She also threatened to institute legal proceedings for the annulment of the deed, and for the recovery of the will, and the establishment of the rights conferred upon her by it. Plaintiff thereupon requested the defendant to come to Iowa, and endeavor to effect a settlement of the matters in dispute between the parties. He accordingly visited them, and a negotiation for a settlement was entered into. Mrs. Hutchison at first demanded the interest in the whole property which she would have taken under the will if it had been admitted to probate, and the conveyance of the land had not been executed. She afterwards consented, however, that the whole property might be divided equally between plaintiff, defendant, Mrs. Weedon, and herself.

It does not clearly appear who first made the suggestion to permit defendant to take a share of the property; but, as he claimed that his father had often told him that he intended to make some provision for him out of his estate, the suggestion probably came from him. The parties agreed upon that division of the property as a basis of settlement. It was further agreed that plaintiff should retain the land, and a portion of the personal property. Certain notes belonging to the estate were turned over to Mrs. Hutchison in part payment of the amount coming to her under the settlement, and plaintiff gave her own promissory note for the difference between the amount of said notes and the value of her share, and she executed to plaintiff a release of her interest in the estate. The notes and mortgage in question were given to defendant in satisfaction of the amount which was coming to him under the settlement. The substance of plaintiff's complaint is that, at the time of the transactions in question, she was in a delicate state of health, and greatly troubled and annoyed by the complications which had arisen with reference to the estate; and that, having implicit confidence in defendant, who is a minister of the gospel, she appealed to him to advise and assist her in the emergency, and that he advised and induced her to consent to the settlement, and that he represented to her that it was necessary for her to sign the papers in question in order to effect a settlement and avoid litigation; and that, relying upon his representations, and having full confidence in him, she did sign them, without having any understanding of their effect, or of the obligations she was thereby assuming; and she claims that they were obtained by fraud and undue influence, and that they were given without consideration.

1. It would not serve any useful purpose to set out the evidence in the case. We will content ourselves, as is our custom in cases of this class, with a statement of the ultimate facts which we think are proven. Plaintiff undoubtedly had great confidence in the judgment and integrity of defendant, and relied upon him to bring about a settlement between her and Mrs. Hutchison. He did not, however, assume to act in the matter as her agent or attorney; that is, he did not himself make the settlement with Mrs. Hutchison, but sought rather...