Beardslee v. Reeves

• Decision Date: 18 October 1889
• Citation: Beardslee v. Reeves, 76 Mich. 661, 43 N.W. 677 (Mich. 1889)
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: BEARDSLEE v. REEVES.

43 N.W. 677

76 Mich. 661

BEARDSLEE v. REEVES.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 18, 1889

Error to circuit court, Oakland county; WILLIAM W. STICKNEY, Judge.

Trover by Orsamus Beardslee, as administrator of Stephen Reeves against George Reeves. There was judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.

MORSE J.

January 27, 1871, Stephen Reeves died intestate, leaving surviving him his widow, one son, the defendant, and six daughters. Stephen Reeves was an old settler and prominent citizen of Oakland county. He had been judge of probate of the county and for this reason, or some other, had a deep-seated and bitter prejudice against the administration of estates in that court, and seemed determined, for many years before his death, to so dispose of his property during his life that at his death there would be nothing left of his estate to be administered upon. His wife died the next fall after his decease. Three of his daughters lived with him at the time of his death, Amanda, Maria, and Mehitable. Maria is now dead. In the summer before his death he attempted to make a disposition of his property. He was the owner of a farm of 200 acres and considerable personal property. On the 22d day of August, 1868, he conveyed this farm to his son, the defendant, who was a married man with a family. In this deed he reserved the west half of his residence to the use of himself and his wife during their lives. And the instrument also contained a condition that his daughters Amanda, Maria and Mehitable should be permitted as long as they remained unmarried "to occupy the same rooms in the house they have been accustomed to occupy," and that the defendant during the same time should furnish them with suitable clothing and a comfortable maintenance. At the time of the execution of this deed George had been living in one part of the house, and had been carrying on the farm in company with his father, for several years. He was living there at the time of his father's death. Mrs. Reeves did not join in the deed, but the record shows that she acquiesced in the arrangement. In the summer of 1870, according to the testimony of the defendant and the three sisters who lived at home, he delivered to these three girls each a mortgage security as their share of his property, and gave to the defendant all his other notes and mortgages as his share. It also appears in the record that some time about 1861 Stephen Reeves made and executed, but did not deliver, six promissory notes, payable at his death, evidently intending the same to be at least a partial distribution of his estate among his children. These notes were for the following sums: To Maria and Mehitable, each $2,000; to Amanda, $500; and to the three married daughters living away from home, Caroline Galloway, Mary Galloway, and Jane Galloway, $200 each. It is claimed by the defendant that these three notes of $200, at the last division of the property, in 1870, were placed in his hands by his father, to be paid after his death by the defendant. Mary and Jane were paid $200 each, and receipted for the same, Mary February 9, 1871, and Jane the same date. The receipts were given in form in full of all demands against their father's estate, and released all further claims against the same. George testified that he also paid Caroline $200, which she denied. In 1885 administration was granted to the plaintiff upon the estate of Stephen Reeves, and in 1887 this suit was commenced in the Oakland county circuit court, in trover for the value of three money obligations, called the "Kellam note," the "Hubbell note," and the "Bowlby notes," and the mortgage which secured them, amounting in all to $1,451.75. The plaintiff claimed that these notes belonged to Stephen Reeves at the time of his death, and that the defendant had collected them and converted the proceeds to his own use without right. The defendant claimed that these instruments were given and delivered to him at the time of his father's distribution of his property in 1870, and that they belonged to him, and he had the right to collect and keep the proceeds of the notes as his own. There was no written assignment of the Bowlby mortgage from the father to the son, but the defendant claimed that the notes and mortgage were handed to him by his father to keep and use as his own. That his father intended that the defendant should have all the property, save the mortgages delivered at the same time to the three girls at home, burdened only with the conditions of the deed, and the payment of $200 to each of the three married sisters. The following assignment was introduced by the defendant, against objection and exception of plaintiff: "I do hereby assign to my son, George Reeves, all my mortgages, notes, and demands which I may die seised of, to be collected and paid in accordance with the amounts specified in notes to my several children. Pontiac, October 29, A. D. 1869. STEPHEN REEVES." Two special questions were submitted to the jury on request of the defendant, both of which were answered, "Yes." "(1) Do you find that Stephen Reeves, seven months prior to his death, gave and delivered to his son, George, the defendant, the notes and the mortgage in controversy? (2) Did defendant receive them, and retain them in his possession, claiming them as his own?" The jury returned, also, a general verdict for the defendant, upon which judgment was entered in his favor.

The first assignment of error relates to the admission of testimony which is claimed to have been incompetent and inadmissible under How. St. � 7545. It seems that before the trial of this cause the defendant was summoned into the probate court by the administrator to answer interrogatories as to his disposition of this property in dispute. His examination in that court was taken down by a stenographer. This stenographer, Mr. Hicks, was called as a witness by the plaintiff, and his minutes read from to prove that defendant, on such examination, testified that he had the Kellam note in his possession, and that he received the money on...