Dingley v. Robinson

• Citation: 149 Wash. 301,270 P. 1018
• Decision Date: 09 October 1928
• Docket Number: 21293.
• Parties: DINGLEY et al. v. ROBINSON et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

270 P. 1018

149 Wash. 301

DINGLEY et al. v. ROBINSON et al.

No. 21293.

Supreme Court of Washington

October 9, 1928

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Walter B. Beals, Judge.

Actions by Miriam Dingley and another against Harry W. Robinson and another. From an adverse judgment, defendant named appeals. Affirmed.

Roberts Skeel & Holman and Elwood Hutcheson, all of Seattle, and Williams & Davis, of Everett, for appellant.

Tucker Hyland & Elvidge, Mary H. Alvord, W. T. Perkins, Bausman Oldham & Eggerman, and David H. Jarvis, all of Seattle, for respondents.

MITCHELL J.

This action was brought to recover, first, the possession of certain stocks and bonds of the approximate value of $65,000 which the defendant Harry W. Robinson claimed had been given to him by his mother, Mrs. Francena Robinson, and, second, to recover the proceeds of two $1,000 bonds of the Nevada California Electric Company and money in the sum of $2,474.25 which he claimed had been given to him by his mother. At the trial the plaintiffs waived all right to recover on account of the $2,474.25 alleged to have been improperly used by Harry W. Robinson of his mother's money. Findings and judgment were entered to the effect that the stocks and bonds described in the first cause of action were not given to Harry W. Robinson by his mother, and as to the two bonds of the Nevada California Electric Company mentioned in the second cause of action, it was found and determined that they had not been given to him, but that he had sold them for $2,095.66 out of which he had disbursed the sum of $1,061.05 on account of the last sickness and funeral of his mother, leaving a balance of $1,034.61, in which amount with interest judgment was given against him. He has appealed.

Mrs. Robinson had three children, one of whom died without issue; the other two were Mrs. Miriam Dingley, respondent, and Harry W. Robinson, appellant. She came to Seattle in March, 1926, and from that time until her death on October, 25, 1926, she lived with her son and family. She was 82 years of age at the time of her death, and though in good health she had her son attend to most of the details of her business. Upon arriving in Seattle she personally rented and paid for a box in the safety deposit vaults of the Seattle National Bank, into which she put and kept all of her bonds and stocks. She arranged with the bank that her son should also have access to the box, procuring two keys, one for herself and another for him, the one for him being delivered to and kept by him. Thereafter, it appears, she never went to the box. He opened it 16 times for the purpose, among others of getting coupons for collection, all of which together with other collections from her securities were placed to her credit in her check account with the bank. She underwent a major surgical operation on or about October 19, 1926, and died therefrom about midnight October 25, 1926. Early the next morning, not secretly but openly and under the advice of an attorney, the appellant took all the securities out of the box and delivered them to the Seattle Title Trust Company upon the written stipulation that the trust company would hold them as a stakeholder subject to comtemplated litigation.

The great bulk of the evidence in this case refers to the personal relations between Mrs. Robinson and her daughter and son and the amount of money the mother had rather freely given to each of her two children. That on the part of the appellant tended to show an estrangement between the mother and daughter the last several years, and that altogether she had furnished her daughter appreciably more money than she had the appellant; on the contrary, that on behalf of the daughter tended to show that, while there was some estrangement, the mother continued to give her daughter money and protested her purpose of finally disposing of her property equally between the two children, and that the amount of money the daughter had received was about equal to that given to her brother.

This testimony, as we understand, was introduced as having a bearing upon the matter of intention on the part of Mrs. Robinson--an essential element of a gift. We cannot review all of this evidence, but among other things it shows very clearly that Mrs. Robinson was a cultivated, shrewd, provident person. She was practical and methodical and exceedingly careful in keeping a diary in which she entered with commendable regularity and care ordinary events, including her relations and letters as well as gifts of money to each of her children, and not a line is to be found in it or any of her letters of any intention to give away all of her property. She thought she would recover from her operation. She said so in a letter to her daughter written the evening before the operation, which letter she directed should be mailed in case she did not survive.

Appellant relies upon a gift of...