Chambers v. McCreery

• Decision Date: 07 February 1901
• Docket Number: 374.
• Parties: CHAMBERS et ux. v. McCREERY et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

106 F. 364

CHAMBERS et ux. v. McCREERY et al.

No. 374.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

February 7, 1901

Malcomb Jackson and J. F. Brown (J. R. McGinnis and Brown, Jackson &amp Knight, on briefs), for appellants.

C. C Watts (John W. McCreery and Watts & Ashby, on briefs), for appellees.

Before GOFF and SIMONTON, Circuit Judges, and PURNELL, District Judge.

GOFF Circuit Judge.

The complainant Lockey F. Chambers, now the wife of her co-complainant, T. W. Chambers, was formerly the widow of Edwin Prince, now deceased, who, at the time of his death was a resident of the state of West Virginia. After the death of her former husband, she married the said T. W. Chambers and they are now citizens and residents of the state of Missouri. They filed their bill in equity in the court below, from which it appears that complainants pray for a decree against the executor of the last will and testament of Edwin Prince, deceased, in favor of said Lockey F. Chambers, for the delivery of certain bonds, or for the amount received from the sale of the same, claimed by such executor as assets of said estate, but which are also claimed by Lockey F. Chambers as her own property. Complainants allege that in the lifetime of Edwin Prince, and during the time the said Lockey F. was his wife, he made her a gift of certain negotiable coupon bonds, payable to bearer, then deposited in the safe-deposit vault of the Third National Bank of the City of Cincinnati, Ohio, and that he, at the time he so made such gift, delivered to her the possession of said bonds, she becoming thereby vested with a full and valid title to the same; that the bonds so given her were 5 bonds of the Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railroad Company, each for the sum of $1,000, bearing interest at the rate of 4 1/2 per cent. per annum, and 14 bonds of the city of Cincinnati, each for the sum of $1,000, bearing interest at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum. The interest on all the bonds was payable semiannually, as shown by the coupons attached to them. In his answer to this bill, the executor denied that Edwin Prince made the gift to the complainant Lockey F. of the bonds claimed by her, and denied that he ever gave her the possession of the same, and further denied that she ever at any time had either legal or equitable title to said bonds or any of them. He claimed the bonds as assets of the estate he was administering. He averred the facts relating to them to be that Edwin Prince in his lifetime purchased them with his own funds, and kept them in the deposit vault of the Third National Bank, at Cincinnati, having rented a box for that purpose. After his death the complainant Lockey F., without authority so to do, took the key of the deposit box, which had been retained by said decedent, and went to Cincinnati for the purpose of securing possession of said bonds, but, as she was refused access to the box by the officials of the bank, she telegraphed the executor to join her in that city, which he did, and that after consultation and consideration an agreement was entered into, of which the following is a copy, to wit:

'Whereas, Edwin Prince, who died at Raleigh C.H., W. Va., December 5, 1894, had rented during his lifetime box 2,807, in the safety-deposit department of the Third National Bank, of Cincinnati, Ohio; and whereas, his widow, Mrs. Lockey F. Prince, has in her possession the keys to said box, and claims to own the contents thereof in her own right, and to have possession thereof; and whereas Burk Prince, as executor under the last will and testament of said Edwin Prince, claims the possession and ownership of the contents of said box for and on behalf of the estate of said Edwin Prince, deceased: Now, therefore, in order to avoid litigation at Cincinnati, right of possession of the contents of said box in the West Virginia courts or elsewhere as may be deemed advisable, and without waiving any right or claim on her part in said matter, said Mrs. Lockey F. Prince agrees to and does hereby transfer to Mr. Hearne, the president of said bank, the keys to said box, and authorizes him to allow said executor to take the contents of said box into his possession, reserving all her right and claim upon said contents for further consideration and action as she may see fit hereafter; provided, however, that said bank shall at the time of the opening of said box cause an accurate schedule of the contents of said box to be made in detail, and handed to her, or to her attorney, L. W. Goss, without delay; and provided, further, that nothing herein contained shall be construed into an admission by said Burk Prince that Mrs. Lockey F. Prince has the rightful and lawful possession of said keys, or that there is any foundation for the claim which she makes to the contents of said box.'

This agreement was dated December 15, 1894, and was signed in duplicate by said complainant Lockey F. Prince, and the executor, Burk Prince.

It was further set out in the answer of said executor that, at the time of the marriage of Edwin Prince to the complainant Lockey F., the former was 65 years of age, a widower having children and grandchildren (some of whom are named as beneficiaries in his will), and the latter was 28 years of age, possessed of no property, and employed as a domestic in a family living where said Prince resided; that the estate of said decedent was worth about $65,000, of which the complainant Lockey F. received about $30,000, under the provisions of the will of said decedent; that the residue of the estate was to be distributed among his legatees as directed by the will, the executor being authorized to sell his bonds, mortgages, securities, and lands for that purpose.

The case was fully matured, and came on regularly to be heard, the depositions of a large number of witnesses having been taken, which were read to, and consider by, the court, as was the testimony of a number who were examined in open court at the time of the submission. The court below entered a decree refusing the relief asked for an dismissing the complainants' bill. 98 F. 783. From that decree the appeal now before us was asked for and granted. The assignment of errors, while four in number, in substance are that the court below erred in finding that the complainants had failed to establish a gift of the bonds in controversy to complainant Lockey F. Chambers by Edwin Prince in his lifetime.

There is much in the record that it will not be necessary for this court to consider, for there is but one issue made by the pleadings, and that is, were the bonds owned by Edwin Prince and kept in his box in the deposit vault of the Third National Bank of Cincinnati given by him in his lifetime to his then wife, the complainant Lockey F. Chambers? Including the bonds in controversy, the estate left by Edwin Prince was worth about $65,000. It was during his lifetime his own, and it was his right to dispose of it as to him seemed best. By his will he gave to the complainant Lockey F. about $30,000 leaving the residue for distribution among his children. He was a man of more than ordinary intelligence, ripe in experience as well as years, and well acquainted with the affairs and the requirements of the community in which he lived and moved. He knew how to dispose of his property by will, and he was careful to scrupulously observe all of the legal essentials in the preparation and execution of that instrument. Presumably he was properly informed as to the course he should pursue, and of the requirements of the law relative to gifts made by him during his lifetime of portions of his property. His will is binding on all to-day, simply because the requirements of the law have been respected. If he really intended to give his wife the bonds mentioned, then the failure to consummate that intention...