Dickinson v. Dickinson

• Decision Date: 19 December 1922
• Docket Number: No. 14358.,14358.
• Citation: 305 Ill. 521,137 N.E. 468
• Parties: DICKINSON v. DICKINSON et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

305 Ill. 521

137 N.E. 468

DICKINSON

v.DICKINSON et al.

No. 14358.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 19, 1922.

Error to Circuit Court, La Salle County; Edgar Eldredge, Judge.

Bill by John Franklin Dickinson against Laura M. Dickinson and others. Decree for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

Charles J. Trainor and James J. Trainor, both of Chicago, and George S. Wiley, of Ottawa, for plaintiff in error.

Irwin I. Hanna and George P. Hills, both of Ottawa, for defendants in error.

FARMER, J.

This is a bill in equity for partition and other relief. The land sought to be partitioned is an 80-acre tract and a 65-acre tract. The 80-acre tract belonged to P. Dickinson, who died testate in 1867. By his will he devised said tract of land to his wife, Mary E., for life and remainder to his two sons, Charles H. and John Franklin, subject to a charge that the sons pay to three daughters of the testator, after the widow's death, $250 each. The will was duly admitted to probate. Charles died July 20, 1920, and in February, 1921, his brother, John Franklin, who is complainant here, filed his bill for partition of the 80 acres and the 65-acre tract, the title to which was in Charles, and for other relief. The original bill in substance alleged the 80-acre tract owned by complainant's father at the time of his death was improved by a dwelling house, barns, and other outbuildings; that at the time of said death complainant was two years old and Charles was four years old; that the farm was managed by the widow, the life tenant, until about 1895, when her health failed and she gave up its management, and it was thereafter managed by complainant and Charles, and the proceeds turned over to their mother.

The complainant alleges about 1888 he left the farm and secured employment in Chicago and elsewhere, and Charles managed the farm in behalf of the widow; that from 1888 to 1900 complainant contributed out of his own earnings to his mother, and to the care and management of the farm, at various times purchased horses to be used on the farm, and in addition thereto loaned Charles $4,000; that complainantwas injured and became ill in 1900, continued ill for several years, and has not yet fully recovered; that Charles, while managing the farm, applied the proceeds of it to his own use until the death of the widow, in 1917; that while the widow lived he allowed her a mere livelihood; that in 1900 complainant requested the payment of the $4,000 Charles had borrowed from him; that a portion of it was paid in February of that year, and the balance was paid in March, 1910, and Charles requested complainant to sign a receipt; that complainant was then sick, suffering from injuries he had received, and unable to comprehend the character of the instrument he was asked to sign, and, believing it to be a receipt for the $4,000, signed the instrument and delivered it to Charles; that the instrument was, in fact, a quitclaim deed of his undivided half of the 80 acres to Charles; that after the signing of the instrument the complainant sent numerous sums of money to his mother, who resided on the farm, and carried his share of the management of the farm, believing he owned the undivided one-half, subject to his mother's life estate; that in January, 1897, Charles purchased the 65 acres out of the profits of the 80-acre farm and from moneys advanced him by complainant, and in good conscience the title should have been taken in the name of the widow but the deed for the 65 acres was made to Charles; that after the death of the widow, in 1917, Charles operated the farm in his own name, and applied the proceeds of the 145 acres to his own use, and never made any accounting of the income and profits of the land; that the widow died intestate, her estate was never probated, and Charles took possession of the land and all the personal property thereon, and converted the same to his own use. The widow left surviving her besides her sons, complainant and Charles, three daughters, Mary York, Sarah Fogg, and Lusette Strickland. The original bill further alleges that in 1913 Laura Kleinpeter, one of defendants, was employed by Charles to do household work on the farm; that after the death of the widow Laura continued as a servant in the home; that in 1917 Charles became afflicted with an incurable disease, which grew in severity until the 17th of December, 1919; that he suffered great pain, and sedatives were administered to relieve him; that it became necessary to operate on him for a cancerous growth about December 17, 1919; that for many months prior he wholly failed to comprehend the obligations and responsibilities of marriage, during which time Laura actively managed the farm and personal affairs of Charles; that the day before he was to be operated upon she induced him to enter into a marriage contract with her, while he was under the influence of drugs, and the day following the marriage he was operated on in a hospital in Chicago, but was continuously thereafter confined to his bed until the time of his death, in July, 1920, during which time he was unable to give any personal care to his affairs or to the farm, and had not sufficient mental capacity to transact his ordinary business affairs; that the next day after the marriage, while Charles was not of sound mind and memory, Laura caused him to execute what purports to be his last will, by which, after payment of his debts, he devised to his sister Sarah $10,000, to his sister Mary $5,000, and to his sister Lusette $10,000. He also gave his sister Lusette, in trust for the benefit of his niece, Florence Heitman, $5,000. He gave his sister Sarah $10,000 in trust for the benefit of complainant, with directions to pay him the net income during his life, and, if that was not sufficient to maintain him, to use the principal, as far as necessary, for that purpose, and at the death of complainant said sum, or what remained of it, should go to his sister Sarah. All the remainder of his property and estate he bequeathed and devised to his wife Laura. Sarah Fogg was appointed executrix.

The bill alleges that in January, 1920, Charles, still being of unsound mind, executed a codicil to his will, by which he gave his sister Sarah $5,000 in addition to the previous bequests, to be held in trust for the use of complainant on the same terms and conditions as the bequest made in the will for the benefit of complainant. The codicil also gave Sarah an additional $5,000 in trust for testator's niece, Florence Heitman. The bill alleges the testator was of unsound mind at the time he executed the will, and that he was under the restraint and undue influence of his wife, Laura, who caused him to execute the same, and that he was wholly incapable of managing his property and transacting the ordinary affairs of life; that after the making of the will and codicil Charles executed a deed to all of the 145 acres to Timothy Fenton, together with a contract between Charles and Fenton, which instruments were placed in escrow with the Grand Ridge National Bank of Grand Ridge, to be delivered to Fenton on the payment of the purchase price of the land, $72,500, which instruments are now held in escrow by said bank; that after the making of the contract and deed, and placing them in escrow, the wife of Charles by undue influence caused him to assign to her $35,000 of the purchase money; that at the time said assignment was...