Chickering v. Brooks
Decision Date | 22 July 1889 |
Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Parties | CHICKERING v. BROOKS et ux. |
Exceptions from Caledonia county court.
This was a petition in chancery, and was heard before ROWELL, Chancellor, at the June term, 1888, on bill, answer, master's report, and exceptions of the defendants thereto. From the master's report it appears that in February, 1887, the oratrix was adjudged insane, and B. D. Hartshorn appointed her guardian. The subsequent November she died, leaving a will, which was admitted to probate. One Ora Drew was appointed her administrator with the will annexed, and as such was at the December term, 1887, admitted to prosecute this suit. When the oratrix died she was 85 years old. The defendant Roxana Brooks was her niece, and in 1883 she and her husband, the defendant William, lived on a farm in Concord, of which the legal title was in one Hill. William obtained a decree allowing him to redeem this farm on payment of $448.66. This sum he borrowed of the oratrix, giving her his note for the amount, and he and his wife quitclaimed the farm to the oratrix, upon condition that, when this note was paid, it should be redeeded to them. Defendants claim that the July following the oratrix gave this note to the defendant Roxana, but the master found that this claim was not substantiated. In November, 1883, the defendant William sold this Concord farm to one Morency. The oratrix deeded the farm to Morency, and took back a mortgage to secure the payment of six notes, one for $50, and five for $100 each, payable to her order. These notes were held by the oratrix as security for the note for $448.66. In December, 1883, defendants went to live with the oratrix upon her farm in Danville, and continued to reside with her until the spring of 1885. In February, 1885, the defendant William bargained for the farm in Danville known as the "Harris Farm." February 4th the farm was conveyed by Harris to defendant, in consideration of $600, $200 of which was paid in cash, and $400 in the notes of the defendant secured by mortgage on the premises. As further security, defendant turned out four of the Morency notes. These notes have been paid to Harris, and the mortgage indebtedness from Brooks to him fully extinguished. The $200 was furnished by the oratrix. The defendants claimed that both the $200 and the Morency notes were given to them by the oratrix. The oratrix claimed that they were both a loan and that the defendants agreed to execute a mortgage on the Harris farm to secure her therefor. On this branch of the case the report of the master was as follows:
Some time previous to the June term, 1885, of the Caledonia county court, a suit was begun by the oratrix against the defendant William, and the Harris place attached. Previously to the December term, 1886, the oratrix signed a written agreement that this suit might be discontinued, without costs, and it was so entered at such December term. On the 6th of December, 1886, the oratrix executed another release, discharging the said William from all claims of all kinds whatever. This last release was under seal. It was claimed on behalf of the oratrix that this last instrument was procured by fraud, and that when she executed the same she was incompetent. The master found: In a supplemental report the master further found:
On the question of mental capacity the master received, against the objection of the defendants, the testimony of certain witnesses, not experts, but who were acquainted with the oratrix, and had associated with her more or less, who were allowed to state their opinion as to her mental capacity and to detail certain conversations with her as bearing upon this question of capacity. The master found that these conversations did not tend to show to his mind that she was non compos. H. C. Ide, of counsel for the oratrix in this suit, and who had been her attorney in the suit at law, was permitted to testify as follows, to a conversation between himself and the defendant William while the suit at law was pending: Defendants filed exceptions to the master's report.
The chancellor decreed: (1) That the second, third, and fourth exceptions to the master's report be overruled, and the report accepted. (2) That the first exception to the report be sustained, as it seems from the report that the master understood and treated the objection to the parol evidence as going to its non-admissibility to prove the agreement found upon it. (3) That the paper...
To continue reading
Request your trial