Biggins v. Biggins

• Decision Date: 14 May 1890
• Citation: 24 N.E. 516,133 Ill. 211
• Parties: BIGGINS et al. v. BIGGINS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

133 Ill. 211

24 N.E. 516

BIGGINS et al.

v.BIGGINS.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

May 14, 1890.

Appeal from circuit court, Will county.

Bill by Francis Biggins against James A. Biggins, Ann Gaffey, and Philip Biggins, to establish a trust in land. Complainant obtained a decree, and defendants appeal.

G. D. A. Parks and Benjamin Olin, for appellants.

R. E. Barber and Haley & O'Donnell, for appellee.

CRAIG, J.

The land in controversy was conveyed by Francis Biggins to Catherine Biggins on December 18, 1876, by a warranty deed absolute in terms, without condition or reservation. The consideration named in the deed was $4,000, but it appears from the evidence that no money consideration was paid for the conveyance. After the execution and delivery of the deed Catherine Biggins went into possession of the land, received the rents and profits, and used it in every respect as her own until her death, on the 8th day of May, 1886. On the 14th day of April, 1884, Catherine Biggins borrowed $600 of one Woodruff, and to secure the payment of the money and interest executed a trust-deed on the premises. The money was never paid, and at her death the land remained incumbered with the deed of trust. What contract was made between Catherine and appellee when the deed was executed the evidence fails to disclose. William T. Myers drafted the deed, but in his evidence he says he cannot remember that any statement or statements were made or conversation had between them when the deed was made or executed. No witness was called to prove a contract or agreement entered into between the parties, under which the land was conveyed. No writing was introduced except the deed, and the only way in which the complainant undertakes to establish a trust is by proving the declarations of Catherine Biggins, made several years after the deed was executed. The court, on the evidence, decided in favor of the complainant, and, for the purpose of determining whether the decree can be sustained, it will be necessary to refer briefly to the evidence contained in the record. The evidence introduced was of a twofold character- First, the declarations of Catherine Biggins to show how she held the title to the land; second, evidence bearing upon the habits and capacity of the appellee, Francis Biggins. The first witness who testified to declarations was Jane Stafford. She said: ‘I heard Catherine speak of the eighty in controversy. She said it was deeded to her for safe-keeping, so that Frank Biggins would not spend it. She had not paid anything for it. This talk was about three years before Catherine died.’ The next witness was John B. Murray. He had two conversations with her,-the first four years ago, and the last one July last. In first conversation she wanted the witness to act as her executor. Said she was in poor health, and did not know how soon she should die. That if she should, and beat Frank out of his farm, she did not think she could rest easy in her grave. She said Frank gave her a deed of the land some time before, but she had never given him any money for it. Said she wanted to will the farm to Frank, for there would be trouble about it in the family if she should die, and leave it without a will. Ellen Murphy testified she heard Catherine talk about the farm at different times; first, three years ago. Said Frank gave her eighty acres of land; that she paid no money for it; that she intended to give it back to Frank. ‘She came seven or eight different times to my house, and wanted my husband to go with her to settle up matters, and nearly every time she spoke of deeding Frank over his farm.’ August Istiel testified: ‘I heard her [Catherine] speak of the property relations between her and Frank. She said she was not long for this world; that Frank Biggins had some trouble, and signed the farm over to her for safe-keeping; that she had mortgaged it for $500, and had to straighten it up, and give him his land back.’ James McGovern, a Catholic clergyman, testified that he had a conversation with Catherine in 1884. She said she had 80 acres of land from Frank, which he had deeded to her in trust, to care for it, because Frank's roving ways and disposition were such that he could not manage it, and would lose it. The witness further stated that he had two or three other conversations with Catherine after she moved to Joliet, the last being at his residence in Lockport, when she spoke of deeding the land to Frank, and he advised her to. So she requested witness to come to Joliet some day, and go with her to a lawyer, and arrange matters satisfactorily.

The foregoing is, in substance, the evidence relied upon to show that Catherine Biggins held the land in trust. The evidence introduced to show that Frank Biggins was of a roving disposition, or in the habit of drinking, or incapable of attending to business, is very weak and unsatisfactory. Justin, who knew him well, and testified for complainant, said: ‘I saw Frank Biggins in 1876; saw him often there for two or three years. He would roam around sometimes, and used to drink a little, but not to any extent that I know of.’ This is the strongest evidence found in the record on this branch of the case. The record contains no evidence...