Corporation of the Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Residing in the Fifteenth Ecclesiastical Ward of Salt Lake Stake of Zion v. Watson

• Decision Date: 03 July 1902
• Docket Number: 1347
• Citation: 25 Utah 45,69 P. 531
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: THE CORPORATION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS RESIDING IN THE FIFTEENTH ECCLESIASTICAL WARD OF SALT LAKE STAKE OF ZION, a Corporation, Respondent, v. HELEN WATSON, Appellant

69 P. 531

25 Utah 45

THE CORPORATION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS RESIDING IN THE FIFTEENTH ECCLESIASTICAL WARD OF SALT LAKE STAKE OF ZION, a Corporation, Respondent, v. HELEN WATSON, Appellant

No. 1347

Supreme Court of Utah

July 3, 1902

Appeal from the Third District Court, Salt Lake County.--Hon. W. C Hall, Judge.

Action in ejectment. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appealed.

REVERSED.

D. S Truman, Esq., for appellant.

It was not enough to warrant a decision in favor of plaintiff to have found that it does not appear that said Bishop had acquired influence over Chatfield or that he took advantage of such or any influence. It must, on the contrary, to uphold this judgment, be made to appear that such was not the fact. Instead of it being made to appear that way by us, it devolved upon the plaintiff to, under the conditions of this case, show that he did not have the influence nor use it, not on us that he did, because the legal presumption is with us and it rests with them to overcome it. The authorities are overwhelmingly against the plaintiff. Ross. v Conway, 28 P. 785; Ford v. Hennessy, 70 Mo. 580; Richmond's Appeal, 59 Conn. 226; Pironi v. Carrigan, 47 N.J. Eq. 135; Norton v. Relly, 2 Eden 286; Hugenin v. Basely, 14 Ves. 273; Thompson v. Hefferman, 4 Dru. & War. 291; Dent v. Bennett, 4 Mylne & C. 269; Story, Eq. Jur., 311; Caspari v. First German Church, 12 Mo.App. 12; Whyte v. Meade, 2 Ir. Eq. Rep. 420; McCarthy v. McCarthy, 9 id. 620; Connor v. Stanley, 72 Cal. 556.

F. S. Richards, Esq., and J. T. Richards, Esq., for respondent.

MINER, C. J. BASKIN and BARTCH, JJ., concur.

OPINION

MINER, C. J.

--This action of ejectment was brought by the respondent to recover the possession of the premises in question. The record shows that in April, 1886, George Chatfield, of the age of sixty-seven years, without children or heirs, married Martha Sandal, a widow lady of about sixty years, who had three children living. After such marriage, the parties continued to reside together in a small dwelling house owned by Chatfield, the premises in question, until August 4, 1886, when Chatfield died intestate. Helen Watson, the defendant here, was the daughter of Martha Sandal by her former husband, and resided with her mother on the premises in question until the latter's death in 1899, and has since resided there. Chatfield had always been a man in good health, clear mind, and of decided opinions. For about two weeks prior to his death he had been sick in body, and, for a day or two prior to his death, confined in bed. The testimony shows that he was sane and mentally capable of transacting business up to the time of his death. Chatfield was a member and believer in the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and Joseph Pollard was the resident bishop of the same church and ward in which Chatfield lived, and they had been old acquaintances, friends, and frequent visitors. Bishop Pollard died several years prior to the time of the trial. Martha Sandal Chatfield, the widow, died in 1899. During Chatfield's sickness, about a day or two prior to his death, Bishop Pollard and N. V. Jones, his counsellor, called upon Chatfield, and while there, and after talking of Chatfield's death and other minor matters, Bishop Pollard asked Chatfield what disposition he desired to make of his property. Chatfield replied that he wanted to give it to the Fifteenth ward, meaning the respondent. At this time his wife, Martha Chatfield, was present, and heard all the conversation. Bishop Pollard then turned to Mrs. Chatfield, and asked her what she had to say. Mrs. Chatfield replied that it was satisfactory to her, provided that she had the use of the property during her lifetime. This was assented to. Thereafter Mr. Jones drew a deed conveying the premises to the respondent corporation, and the next day Bishop Pollard, N. V. Jones, and Geo. M. Cannon returned to Mr. Chatfield's house, and Mr. Cannon read the deed in question to the latter carefully, and fully explained its contents to him. Mr. Chatfield was satisfied with it, was desirous of signing it after it was read over to him, which he did by making his mark and acknowledging it. Mrs. Chatfield was present at their own home when the deed was executed, and assented to it, but with the understanding that she was to have a life lease and the use and right to live upon the property as long as she lived. Geo. M. Cannon, N. V. Jones, E. W. Parry, who were present at the time of the execution of the deed, testified, in substance, that Chatfield was of sound mind and memory at the time of the conversation and execution of the deed to the respondent. No inducements or improper influences appeared to have been used in any outward manner to procure the execution of the paper in question, so far as the record presents the fact, except as hereinafter stated. The testimony of the appellant and her sister, Mrs. Giles, does not show the incompetency of Mr. Chatfield to make a contract at the time the deed was made, but tends to show that in his weak condition of body he could be more easily influenced and controlled by those in whom he had confidence than when in good health. At the time, and before the execution of the deed, Mr. Chatfield was in his own home, surrounded by his wife and her daughters, and was free to consult with them or others who visited them concerning his property and business affairs. So far as appears, no private interview was had between the bishop and Mr. Chatfield in the absence of his wife, nor is there any evidence to show affirmatively that Bishop Pollard exercised any improper influence over him because of the existence of any confidential relationship between them as bishop and member of the church society in question. After Chatfield's death, Mrs. Chatfield remained in possession of the house and lot as sole occupant until 1894, without paying rent. About the year 1894, for the assumed purpose of adjusting the title, so that adverse claim should not arise in favor of the heirs, the plaintiff executed to Mrs. Chatfield a lease of the premises during her life at a yearly rental of one dollar, which lease was signed by Mrs. Chatfield, and rent was thereafter demanded by the corporation and paid by her for three or four years prior to her death in 1899, when she ceased to pay rent. After Mrs. Chatfield's death, this suit was commenced, by the plaintiff and respondent, against the appellant, the daughter of Mrs. Chatfield, to recover possession of the premises in question. The defendant resisted the plaintiff in obtaining the possession of such property on the ground that the plaintiff obtained the same by undue influence asserted upon the grantor of the premises, George Chatfield, while he was in such a condition, mentally and physically, as to render him in an unfit condition to transfer the property, and such undue influence was exercised by his spiritual adviser, Bishop Pollard, who was the bishop of the stake of Zion, in which said Chatfield was living; and that the said Mrs. Chatfield never had any independent advice, but, relying upon the statement made to her by Bishop Pollard, the bishop of said ward, she was induced to take a lease giving her a life tenancy in the premises; otherwise, she would not be permitted to reside there any longer. That George Chatfield and his wife were old and infirm; firm believers in the tenets of the faith of the Church of Latter-Day Saints, and that, by reason of the condition that Mr. Chatfield was then in, the deed was void, and should be annulled by the court. The court made findings of fact and conclusions of law and decree in favor of plaintiff.

The appellant, to maintain her defense, sought to show the conversation between Mrs. Lewis, a daughter of Mrs. Chatfield, and Mrs. Chatfield in her lifetime, at a time subsequent to the date of the execution of the deed by Chatfield to the respondent, when no one representing the respondent was present. This testimony was clearly hearsay and inadmissible as evidence. The declaration of Mrs. Chatfield concerning the deed and the property was inadmissible. In 1886, a wife was not, under the statute, a necessary party to a conveyance of land by the husband. A husband could at this time convey his property without joining his wife. The testimony sought was self-serving narrations of past transactions by one not a party to a deed or suit, when other parties in interest were absent.

The appellant also objects to the testimony of N. V. Jones wherein he relates the conversations between Mrs. and Mr Chatfield, Bishop Pollard, and himself with reference to the conveyance of land to respondent. The admission of this testimony was proper because the appellant was claiming title as heir of Mrs. Chatfield, and as...