Farmer v. Garrett, 108.

• Decision Date: 02 February 1939
• Docket Number: No. 108.,108.
• Citation: 287 Mich. 305,283 N.W. 589
• Parties: FARMER v. GARRETT.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

287 Mich. 305

283 N.W. 589

FARMER

v.GARRETT.

No. 108.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Feb. 2, 1939.

Suit in equity by Edward Farmer against Vivian Frances Garrett and another for specific performance of an oral contract whereby defendants' testator allegedly agreed to leave all of his property to plaintiff. From a decree for plaintiff, the named defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Philip H. Elliott, Judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Raymond P. Baubie, of Detroit, for appellant.

Mayer C. Brown, of Detroit, for appellee.

NORTH, Justice.

This is a suit in equity in which plaintiff seeks specific performance of an oral contract alleged to have been made by Richard Draper, now deceased, with Edward Farmer, plaintiff. It is plaintiff's claim it was agreed in this oral contract that in consideration of plaintiff staying with Richard Draper and doing the work required of him for Draper and his wife during the remainder of their lives, that Draper upon his death would leave all his property to plaintiff. Defendants deny the making of such oral contract, and as a part of their defense introduced in evidence the will of Richard Draper executed May 6, 1935, wherein Vivian Garrett, one of the defendants herein was made the sole beneficiary. Draper died September 9, 1935. The circuit judge found the alleged contract proven and entered a decree for specific performance. Vivian Garrett has appealed; but the other defendant, the executrix of Draper's estate, has not appealed.

There is testimony showing that in 1916, when plaintiff was 15 years old, he was brought from another state to Detroit by his half brother, and that this was under an arrangement or agreement which the half brother had with Draper as to his taking the boy into his family, rearing him as his son, and if the boy did what was right he would have Draper's property upon the latter's death. At the time of this arrangement Richard Draper was separated from his wife, Ann Draper; and together with Elizabeth Jefferson he was operating a rooming and boarding house in Detroit. In 1921, after securing a divorce in 1920 from his first wife, Draper married Elizabeth Jefferson.

At the time of the court hearing plaintiff's half brother who had brought him to Detroit was dead. So far as the record discloses there was no living person competent to testify as to the arrangement entered into between Draper and this half brother concerning plaintiff. But one of plaintiff's witnesses, Berry Lyles, testified that Mr. Draper in 1922 told him the arrangement with the half brother was as follows: ‘He (Draper) told me he got him and made a promise to his brother John, that he didn't have no children and his wife didn't have any, that he made a promise to his brother John, if he let him raise this boy he would raise him decent enough, and if the boy worked out to be all right, and they gone, he would never regret it, that everything they had would belong to him, because he had no relation whatever; that's what he told me times and times.'

There was testimony by George M. Cook, a postal employee, that he wanted to purchase the home of Mr. and Mrs. Draper in 1931 and that Draper told him: ‘It is not for sale. This goes to my son Edward.'

Another witness for plaintiff, Mrs. Millie Henry, who together with her husband lived in Mr. Draper's home during the last months of his life, testified that during this time she heard Draper tell plaintiff the property belonged to him, that everything would go to him; and that plaintiff thereupon thanked Draper. This witness testified she heard like statements on several occasions. Mr. Henry testified that during the last illness of Draper plaintiff did the work about the house and also took care of Draper; and that on one occasion he heard Draper say to plaintiff, who had been away from the home during part of an evening, ‘Where have you been? * * * You want to stay pretty close to me. * * * What I got will be yours when I am gone,’ and plaintiff then replied: ‘All right. I see.'

There is abundance of testimony in the record to the fact that Draper repeatedly stated that it was his intention and desire plaintiff should have his property if plaintiff survived Draper and his wife. The latter died March 3, 1935, and as noted above Draper's death occurred September 9, 1935. Neither of them left a surviving...