Brown v. Crafts

• Decision Date: 01 July 1903
• Parties: BROWN, Probate Judge v. CRAFTS et al.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

56 A. 213

98 Me. 40

BROWN, Probate Judge

v. CRAFTS et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

July 1, 1903.

(Official.)

Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Piscataquis County.

Action by Calvin W. Brown, judge of probate, against Arthur A. Crafts and others. Case reported. Judgment for plaintiff.

Debt on bond to the judge of probate of Piscataquis county on the application of Hattie Eveleth, widow of John H. Eveleth, late of Greenville, in said county, deceased. The suit was in common form in such cases against the executor and the American Surety Company of New York, which furnished the bond.

The plea was the general issue, with a brief statement of full performance. The plaintiff filed a counter brief statement setting out, in substance, the failure of the executor to return a true and perfect inventory of the testator's estate.

The testator, in his lifetime, had, in form, made a gift to his daughter of certain stocks, bonds, and mortgages of the market value of about $60,000. The executor had failed to include these securities in his inventory. His failure to do so was the basis of this suit, prosecuted in the name of the Judge of probate by the testator's widow. Argued before WISWELL, C. J., and SAVAGE, WHITEIIOUSE, STROUT, POWERS, and PEABODY, JJ.

C. F. Johnson, C. W. Hayes, and W. H Powell, for plaintiff.

W. E. Parsons, Henry Hudson, and F. E. Guernsey, for defendant.

PEABODY, J. This is an action of debt on a probate bond, commenced in the name of Calvin W. Brown, judge of probate for the county of Piscataquis, state of Maine, against Arthur A. Crafts, executor of the will of John H. Eveleth, late of Greenville, in said county, deceased, testate, and American Surety Company, surety on his official bond, by Hattie Eveleth, widow of the testator. It is before the law court on report.

The testator died on the 7th day of November, 1899, leaving a widow, Hattie Eveleth, and Rebecca W. Crafts, a daughter by a former wife. The will was admitted to probate on the 8th day of January, 1900, and within six months thereafter the widow waived the provision made for her, and claimed her right and interest by descent in her husband's estate. The defendant Arthur A. Crafts, husband of Rebecca W. Crafts, was appointed executor of the will, and gave bond to the judge of probate, the predecessor of the nominal plaintiff. He returned an inventory of the estate to the probate court within the time required by law, which included improved real estate, $34,120; wild land, $40,900.50; goods and chattels, $9,879.93; and rights and credits, $34.798.24.

The basis of the suit is the breach of the condition of the executor's bond by his failure to include in his inventory certain stocks, bonds, and mortgages specified in the plaintiff's replication, amounting at their face value in the aggregate to $65,673.33, and of the market value of about $60,000. This property belonged to the deceased prior to June 12, 1898, and constituted part of his estate at his death, unless the title thereto passed to his daughter by gift. It was in his possession at the time of his death, and was afterwards delivered by his executor to his daughter, who claimed it under deed of gift from the deceased dated June 11, 1898, signed on the following day.

It appears that the testator, four days after the execution of his will, without the knowledge of his wife or daughter, caused to be prepared two written instruments—one a bill of sale or assignment, by which he sought to transfer the property in controversy to his daughter; the other a power of attorney, under which he was to receive the property, and during his life to manage, control, and have the use and income of the same, and the right to pledge it for his personal debts, or to sell it, as he might deem necessary, to pay any indebtedness he might have, using the same as though it were his own property. His daughter, Rebecca W. Crafts, was then called, and his intention to give her this property disclosed to her, and the papers were executed consecutively by himself and his daughter with all the formalities required in the transfer of personal property. Upon signing the bill of sale he delivered the stocks, bonds, and mortgages described therein to the donee, who received them, and at his request compared them, item by item, with the schedule; and she in turn signed the power of attorney, and redelivered the property to the donor, to be by him retained and used in accordance with its terms.

So far as appears by the report, there is but one rational explanation for the execution of these papers. Eveleth was 40 years older than his wife, and, while nothing appears to indicate that the marriage relation was not usually harmonious, his wife had, in their discussions in reference to the disposition of his property, made threats that she meant to get all she could out of the estate when he got though with it. He communicated this fact to his attorney when seeking his advice in regard to the validity of the disposition of this property by gift to his daughter under the bill of sale and the conditions by which he was to retain the control and enjoyment of it during his life under the power of attorney.

The validity of the transaction is called in question by the plaintiff in interest upon two grounds:

(1) That it was not a completed gift.

(2) That it was a disposition of personal property, intended to deprive his wife of her distributive share, and was, consequently, as to her, by law fraudulent and void.

Gifts to children are favored by the policy of the law. Love v. Francis, 63 Mich. 181, 29 N. W. 843, 6 Am....