Gerard v. Beecher

• Decision Date: 08 January 1908
• Citation: 68 A. 438,80 Conn. 363
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: GERARD v. BEECHER et al.

68 A. 438

80 Conn. 363

GERARD

v. BEECHER et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Jan. 8, 1908.

Appeal and Cross-Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Silas A. Robinson, Judge.

Action by George D. Gerard against E. Louise Beecher and others, in which defendants Josephine L. Hazleton Hill and others filed a cross-complaint. From a judgment dismissing the complaint and cross-complaint, plaintiff and cross-complainants appeal. Affirmed.

The following facts are set out at length in the complaint: In 1871 Mrs. Sarah L. Maltby died, leaving an estate which embraced considerable New Haven real estate inherited from her father, a will, and a sister, a Mrs. Garfield, who was her only heir. Mrs. Garfield at that time had three children, to wit, Nathaniel and John Garfield and Eunice Louise Beecher, the plaintiff's mother. Another daughter of Mrs. Garfield had died, leaving the defendant Josephine L. Hazleton Hill as her only child. Mrs. Garfield survived Mrs. Maltby only a short time, and died before the settlement of the latter's estate, leaving the four persons named as the former's sole heirs. Mrs. Beecher, Mrs. Hill, and Nathaniel Garfield are now living and are made defendants. John Garfield has died, leaving a widow and two sons as his only heirs, to wit, the defendants Frankie S. Garfield, Umberto Dante Garfield, and James A. Lyon Garfield. Mrs. Hill has four children, who, with her, are defendants. The plaintiff is the only child of Mrs. Beecher. Mrs. Maltby by her will gave one fourth part of all the real estate inherited by her from her father, and including Nos. 780 and 782 Chapel street in New Haven, to Nathaniel Garfield, and one fourth to John. Another fourth was given in trust for Mrs. Beecher during her natural life, and "then and after her decease to her lawful heirs forever." The remaining fourth was in like manner given in trust for Mrs. Hill during her natural life, and "then and after her decease to her heirs forever." The estate was finally settled in May, 1872, when distributors were appointed and a distribution returned. By this distribution there was set to Nathaniel Garfield certain real estate as representing one quarter of Mrs. Maltby's said real estate derived from her father, to John an undivided half interest in No. 782 Chapel street and other real estate as also representing another quarter, to Henry White in trust for Mrs. Beecher during her life and after her decease to her heirs, No. 780 Chapel street as being another quarter, and to said White in trust for Mrs. Hill during her life and at her decease to her heirs an undivided half interest with John in No. 782 Chapel street and other real estate as being the remaining quarter. At the time of this distribution Mrs. Hill had minor children living, and it was the wish and intention of Mrs. Maltby that Mrs. Hill's children should take the remainder in the property in which the life use was given to Mrs. Hill. At that time the plaintiff was about 30 years of age, and the only child of Mrs. Beecher, and it was Mrs. Maltby's wish and intention that he should receive the remainder in the property in which the life use was given to his mother. The distribution was made as it was for the purpose of carrying out Mrs. Maltby's wishes. Nathaniel, John, Mrs. Beecher, and Mrs. Hill were all of full age when the distribution was made, and understood and intended that the plaintiff should receive and did receive the fee in No. 780 Chapel street, subject to the life use of his mother, and that the children of Mrs. Hill should receive the fee in the undivided one-half of No. 782 Chapel street, subject to the life use of their mother. Following the distribution Mrs. Beecher entered upon the enjoyment of her life estate in No. 780 under the claim, and in the belief that the plaintiff was the owner of the fee, and has erected a building thereon at a cost of $25,000. Mrs. Hill in like manner entered upon the enjoyment of the property set out for her life use under a claim that the title thereto, subject to her life estate, was in her children, and has expended about $8,000 in permanent improvements thereon. No appeal has ever been taken from the order of distribution, and all parties have since until 1905 acquiesced in the distribution under the claims of the parties made thereto, and not objected to the improvements and expenditures therefor made by either Mrs. Beecher or Mrs. Hill. The estate of John Garfield has been settled and distributed, and no claim was in the process thereof made to any interest in said John in No. 780 Chapel street, or to any other interest in No. 782 than that set out to him in said distribution, nor was such interest inventoried as a part of his estate. No member of his family has appeared and Umberto has released to the plaintiff any interest he may have in No. 780. In 1901 the defendants Maria E. Ives, as administratrix of the estate of Charles Ives and individually, and Kate Ives Waldo, filed a judgment lien upon Nos. 780 and 782 Chapel street against Mrs. Beecher, and have since foreclosed the same, the judgment becoming absolute in November, 1903. Under this judgment these defendants, hereinafter called the "Ives defendants," took possession of No. 780, and the rents and profits thereof have since been appropriated by them. The other defendants claim, or may claim, an interest in said premises adverse to the plaintiff. The plaintiff asked that the Ives defendants account for the rents and profits received by them; that upon such accounting and the payment by the plaintiffs to said defendants of what should remain due upon said judgment said defendants be required to release to the plaintiff all rights claimed by them by virtue of said lien and foreclosure; that each of the other defendants in his or her answer state whether or not he or she claims any estate or interest in or incumbrance upon the property No. 780 Chapel street, and, if so, set out the nature and extent of such claimed estate, interest, or incumbrance, and the manner in which and sources from which the same is claimed to have been derived; and that a judgment be rendered quieting and settling the title to said property, and adjudging that the plaintiff is the owner thereof in fee simple, subject to the life estate of Mrs. Beecher, his mother. To this complaint Nathaniel Garfield and the Ives defendants demurred. The defendants Hill disclaimed all interest in said premises No. 780, and presented a cross-complaint in which, upon the facts alleged in the complaint admitted to be true, and the additional allegations that said distribution was the result of a family agreement between the only heirs of Mrs. Maltby's sole heir, to which all the parties thereto elected to and did conform, and that said judgment lien was a cloud upon their title to No. 782, it was asked as against the Ives defendants that said lien be declared void as to said No. 782, or, if not, that an accounting be made by said defendants and the right of redemption given, and as against the other defendants that the same relief be given to the cross-complainants in respect to No. 782 as was asked by the plaintiff in respect to No. 780. The plaintiff replied, admitting the allegations of the cross-complaint. Nathaniel Garfield and the Ives defendants demurred to it, averring that it was not germane to the issues presented by the complaint, and insufficient. The Ives demurrers contained reasons of demurrer not found in that of Nathaniel Garfield, which related to the prayers of relief especially addressed to them. The court sustained all the demurrers, and thereafter, the parties having failed to amend, rendered judgment dismissing both the complaint and cross-complaint.

Edward H. Rogers, for George A. Hill and others. William B. Stoddard, for George L. Gerard. Henry G. Newton and Harrison Hewitt, for Marie E. Ives Humphrey and others. E. P. Arvine, for Nathaniel L. Garfield.

PRENTICE, J. (after stating the facts as above). The plaintiff's claim to a vested title to or interest in the property described in the complaint, and known as No. 780 Chapel street, is the foundation of the claim for relief presented by him in the complaint. In like manner the claim of the defendants the Hill children to a vested title to or interest in the property known as No. 782 Chapel street underlies the claim for redress presented by the defendants Hill in their...