Clapper v. Frederick
| Decision Date | 27 May 1901 |
| Docket Number | 172,171 |
| Citation | 199 Pa. 609,49 A. 218 |
| Parties | Clapper v. Frederick Clapper v. Fluck |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued May 13, 1901
Appeal, Nos. 171 and 172, Jan. T., 1900, by defendants, from judgment of C.P. Bedford Co., Dec. T., 1899, Nos. 42 and 43 on verdict for plaintiff in suits of Nathaniel Clapper Administrator of Elizabeth Clapper, Deceased, v. Adam Frederick, and John B. Fluck, Executors of Daniel Stayer, Deceased, and against John B. Fluck and Jacob Koontz, Executors of John Stayer, Deceased. Affirmed.
Assumpsit on promissory notes. Before LONGENECKER, P.J.
At the trial the court directed a verdict in favor of plaintiff subject to the following question reserved:
There is not any evidence in this case to be submitted to the jury, upon which the plaintiff is entitled to recover, and the jury must therefore render a verdict for the defendant.
Verdict in the first case for $1,942, and in the second case for $1,806.32.
LONGENECKER, P.J., filed the following opinion on a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.
Elizabeth Clapper's maiden name was Stayer. She was a sister of John Stayer and Daniel Stayer, the defendants' decedents, and had an individual estate in personalty, derived from her father, amounting to something over $6,000. Of that amount she had $2,546.83 invested in the hands of her brother, John Stayer, on November 12, 1894, and $2,621.96 in the hands of her brother, Daniel Stayer, for which she held their notes. At an advanced period in life she married Henry Clapper, whose former wife had died leaving children, one of whom is the plaintiff in these cases. There were no children of the second marriage, but Elizabeth Clapper had a number of nephews and nieces. She and her husband were growing quite old when, on November 12, 1894, she met her two brothers by arrangement at the house of John Stayer in company with John B. Fluck, Esq., and after the two notes of the brothers were produced and calculations made by Fluck, showing the amount due thereon, she deducted from each the sum of $844.79, and took from them, for the balances, a number of notes in smaller sums, given in the names of her relatives, which were made payable in four years with interest at three per centum for the last year only. The original indebtedness of each brother was canceled to the extent of $844.79 by a gift of that sum, and on the trial we held the respective debts relinquished and discharged for a corresponding amount as of November 12, 1894.
When the new notes were given the payees named therein were not present and they never had possession of them in the lifetime of Elizabeth Clapper, nor were any of them paid since. It is clear and not disputed that she intended to make gifts of the sums represented by these notes to the payees, but there was no delivery to the intended donees until after her death. When executed she placed the notes in the hands of her brother, Daniel, one of the makers, without any explicit instructions as to the time of their delivery. Of the four persons present at that time, only two lived to testify in regard to the transactions on November 12, 1894, and in reference to the disposition of the notes, namely, John B. Fluck, Esq., and John Stayer. Their testimony shows that Daniel had been attending to his sister's business and had charge of her papers prior to that meeting, and had custody of his own note to her and that of his brother, John; that she handed these notes to him with directions to deliver them to the donees, but without any instructions as to the time when that should be done. Fluck says, "There was no times fixed as to when they should be distributed." John Stayer says, "He (Daniel) was to keep them and keep them safe." Being asked, "What was Daniel to do with those notes that you gave that day?" he replied, "He was to deliver them to who they were given to." The evidence upon the question as to the time when it was contemplated delivery of the notes should be made is not very clear, but it is manifest that Daniel did not understand that an immediate delivery was intended, for he placed them with her other notes in his possession and retained them until he died. His death occurred before that of his sister. Rinehart Stayer, a nephew, was then requested by Mrs. Clapper to take charge of these notes. He received and held them until after her death, which took place May 11, 1896. He says he took them to his home and cared for them and never opened them until after she died; that he was to deliver them but no time was set. Whatever may have been her intention with regard to the time when the notes should be given to the donees when she placed them in the hands of her brother, it is somewhat remarkable, if she designed an immediate delivery, that she again put them in charge of Rinehart Stayer without any specific directions on the subject, after Daniel had held them a year without turning them over.
She had previously made a will in which she made substantially the same disposition of her estate, but was advised that she could not make a testamentary distribution of her property which would deprive her husband of his rights under the law, and so she adopted this method. She stated she did not intend the Clappers should have her estate after she was gone. The theory of the plaintiff is that she did not desire the arrangement made on November 12, 1894, to become known to her husband until after her death in case he should survive her, and in case she survived him the notes would be still in her control for her use or any other disposition she might prefer. Henry Clapper, the husband, did survive her about a year, when he died May 18, 1897. Now his son, as the administrator of Elizabeth Clapper, seeks to recover for the estate of his father from the estates of John Stayer and Daniel Stayer, now also deceased, the sums owing by them respectively on their notes to their sister, alleging there was no such delivery of the notes given November 12, 1894, as could vest title in the intended donees. The two cases were tried together.
We expressed pretty full our views on the legal questions involved, in our instructions to the jury, leaving for consideration on the pending motions for judgment in favor of the defendants non obstante veredicto merely the question whether there is any proof of delivery which would warrant a jury in finding that the transactions mentioned divested the title of Mrs. Clapper to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial