Bradbury's Estate, In re

• Citation: 275 Wis. 564,82 N.W.2d 804
• Parties: In re Estate of Janette BRADBURY, Deceased. Irma GORGES, Appellant, v. Victor ANTHONY, Adm'r, etc., et al., Respondents.
• Decision Date: 07 May 1957
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Page 804

82 N.W.2d 804

275 Wis. 564

In re Estate of Janette BRADBURY, Deceased.

Irma GORGES, Appellant, v. Victor ANTHONY, Adm'r, etc., et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

May 7, 1957.

Earl F. Kileen, Wautoma, Lehner & Lehner, Princeton, for appellant.

R. E. Johnson, Waupaca, Gad Jones, Wautoma, for respondent Victor Anthony.

MARTIN, Chief Justice.

Janette Bradbury died October 17, 1955 at the age of 86 years. Her estate consisted of a 39-acre tract of land in Waushara county. She also had, during her lifetime, a life estate in 240 acres of land; the claimant, Irma Gorges, was remainderman.

Claimant, a niece of the decedent, testified that from 1941 to 1945, while Janette Bradbury lived alone on her life estate property about a quarter mile from the claimant's home, she made the decedent's meals, did her laundry and stayed with her overnight; that in 1945 Miss Bradbury came to live with the claimant, occupying two separate rooms in the Gorges home; she remained there until her death.

After Miss Bradbury's death Mrs. Gorges filed a petition for administration of her estate, stating in effect that the decedent owned no property except real estate of the probable value of $5,000 and that she left no debts. Thereafter Mrs. Gorges filed three claims against the estate: one for taxes paid by her on the life estate property and tax certificates purchased by her on the land held in fee by decedent (allowed by the court); one for the reasonable value of the care of decedent by Mrs. Gorges and her husband (disallowed); and one for $5,000 on a note introduced in evidence as Exhibit G and reading as follows:

'Apr. 18, 1955

'After my death I promise to pay my niece Irma Gorges the sum of $5,000.00 five thousand dollars for value received.

'Janette Bradbury'

It is not disputed that the note is in the handwriting of Irma Gorges and the signature is that of Janette Bradbury.

In disallowing the last claim, it was the trial court's opinion that claimant failed to prove execution and delivery of the note.

It was the testimony of Irma Gorges that Miss Bradbury had no money and that she was the only one of the relatives who ever did anything for her; that she wrote the note at the request of the decedent and placed it in the family Bible which she kept in the dresser in her own bedroom; that she never told anyone about the note; that the Bible was accessible to and used by all the family, but was used most by Miss Bradbury, who was the most religious member of the family. Three other papers, the property of Miss Bradbury, were also kept in the Bible; these related to family history and information of interest to the decedent.

Other than the self-serving testimony of the claimant, Mrs. Mildred Kohl was the only witness who testified with respect to the execution of the note. She testified that she made a number of friendly visits to the decedent, and Miss Bradbury told her she appreciated the care and kindness of Mrs. Gorges and her husband; that on one occasion in May of 1955 Miss Bradbury went to Irma's bedroom and brought out the note which she asked her to read, saying, 'Mrs. Kohl, I have done what I wanted to do for a long time and I want to show it to you;' that Irma had been very good to her for years and she felt she owed her a big debt and she had made it right.

At a hearing on March 23, 1956 claimant's counsel showed Mrs. Kohl Exhibit 1, which was a typwritten carbon copy of the writing contained in Exhibit G. She was asked:

'Q. I show you Exhibit 1 and ask you to read it and tell us whether that is a copy of the note that Janette Bradbury showed to you. A. No, it is not. That she was going to leave her $5,000.00 but there was a note of other writing on the note. It was in longhand you know.

'Q. But this is the substance of the note? A. Yes. Exactly.

'Q. Do you know what else was on the sheet? A. Well, just for her kindness and for doing things up on the place where she lived * * *'

She gave the following testimony on cross-examination:

'Q. So that we understand each other then, Mrs. Kohl, it is your testimony that the note would make mention of some things that they had done in connection with the buildings and also did it make mention of the care that they had provided for her? A. Yes, that it did.

'Q. And those were specifically mentioned in the note that you saw? A. Yes, I am sure that it did.'

The hearing was adjourned to April 12, 1956, at which time Mrs. Kohl testified as follows:

'Q. I show you Exhibit 'G.' Look that over carefully and I ask you is that the note that Janette Bradbury showed to you? A. That's the note.

'Q. Are you sure of that? A. I am very sure.'

On cross-examination she admitted that Exhibit 1 was a copy of Exhibit G and stated...