Bishop v. Leonard

• Decision Date: 15 May 1902
• Docket Number: 10,054.
• Citation: 123 F. 981
• Parties: BISHOP et al. v. LEONARD et al.
• Court: United States Circuit Court, District of Indiana

123 F. 981

BISHOP et al. v. LEONARD et al.

No. 10,054.

United States Circuit Court, D. Indiana.

May 15, 1902

C. W Baker, O'Hara & Jordan, and John D. Thomson, for complainant.

Smith Duncan, Hornbrook & Smith, A. C. Harris, Wm. C. Daily, Edward B. Raub, Frank C. Cutler, J. W. Newman, and J. J. M. La Follette, for defendants.

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit by the complainants to reach and reclaim the proceeds of certain government bonds alleged to have belonged to one Elizabeth P. Patterson in her lifetime, and which were procured from her by the defendant Mary E. Leonard as a gift four days before the death of the donor. Mrs. Patterson lived in Cincinnati, Ohio, and Mrs. Leonard, who was her first cousin, came to visit her about a week before her death. Mrs Leonard then and for a long time before her visit was intimately acquainted with, and had great influence over Mrs Patterson. Mrs. Patterson was at the time of the visit, and for a long time before had been, in failing health, and her mental faculties had become impaired, and she was of unsound mind, and incapable of transacting business and easily influenced. As soon as Mrs. Leonard became an inmate of the house of Mrs. Patterson, she began by undue influence, art and artifice to exert a control over her, and while she was in the aforesaid mental condition, sick in bed, and unable to transact business or to enter into agreements or contracts of any kind, Mrs. Leonard, by such influence, importunity, argument, and entreaty, solicited and procured Mrs. Patterson to give to her certain government bonds of the face value of $4,000, gift, and was sick, ill, and inform in mind and body, and unable to resist the importunities, entreaties, and arguments of Mrs. Leonard. Four days after the gift had been made Mrs. Patterson died testate, leaving a will naming the Union Savings Bank & Trust Company as executor and trustee, and in said will giving all her property to others, to the exclusion of the complainants. The complainants, as heirs at law, brought suit in an Ohio court to contest the validity of the will. The suit 'was compromised by the defendant the Union Savings Bank & Trust Company, individually and as executor and trustee, and by the other beneficiaries under the will agreeing to turn over and convey and deliver to complainants, in kind or otherwise, one-half of the said property belonging to the estate of the said decedent, Elizabeth P. Patterson, which said agreement was in writing, and was and is in full force and effect and binding upon all the parties; that said agreement of settlement was approved and ordered by the court; and thereupon a decree was entered after the verdict of a jury affirming and establishing the said will and the codicils thereto. Said agreement has been partially executed and carried out.'

The defendants have demurred to the bill for various reasons. The foregoing is a sufficient statement of the facts contained in the bill to disclose the grounds upon which...