Haeg v. Haeg

• Decision Date: 24 April 1893
• Citation: 53 Minn. 33
• Parties: SUSIE HAEG <I>et al.</I> <I>vs.</I> FRED HAEG <I>et al.</I>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

53 Minn. 33

SUSIE HAEG et al.vs.

FRED HAEG et al.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Argued January 17, 1893.

Decided April 24, 1893.

Appeal by plaintiffs, Susie Haeg and others, minor children of Charles Haeg, deceased, from an order of the District Court of Hennepin County, Hooker, J., made September 24, 1892, denying their motion for a new trial.

On July 17, 1889, Charles Haeg was the owner of about three hundred and forty acres of land in Hennepin county, a lot in Minneapolis, and a quarter section of land in Kandiyohi county. On that day he and his wife executed deeds of all this land, dividing it among his children. The deed to defendant, Fred Haeg, one of his adult sons, purported to convey to him forty acres of the land in Hennepin county. Charles Haeg also signed a memorandum stating that the deeds were to be delivered to the grantees therein named, immediately preceding the time of his death, or, in case of a failure to so deliver them, they were to be delivered as soon after his death as possible. The deeds and this memorandum were placed by him in an envelope and deposited in the box where he kept his papers in the Safe Deposit Vaults of the Minnesota Loan and Trust Company in Minneapolis. His friend Edward B. King was with Haeg and wife when the deeds were executed, signed them as a witness, and went with him and assisted to place them in the vault. Haeg at the same time requested King to see that the deeds were delivered to the children at his death, and King promised him to do so. Charles Haeg died intestate February 3, 1891. The day before his death his wife sent for King and he came. Haeg, although very sick and able to talk but little, requested King to "look out for the boys." After Haeg's death, King and the widow, on February 13, 1891, went to the vault and obtained the deeds and delivered them to the several grantees. She paid the taxes on the land and had the deeds recorded. On February 24, 1891, the grantees assigned and released to the widow all their claims to the personal estate of the deceased, about $4,000 in value.

On October 31, 1891, a guardian ad litem was appointed for the plaintiffs, and this action commenced to cancel and set aside the deed to the defendant Fred Haeg, and the record thereof, on the ground that it was never delivered. The action was tried April 29, 1892, and findings made and judgment ordered, that plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief.

George S. Grimes and E. A. Campbell, for appellants.

Shaw & Cray, for respondent.

VANDERBURGH, J.

The plaintiffs and defendants are the widow and children of Charles Haeg, deceased, late of Hennepin county, and his sole heirs at law.

The deceased and the plaintiff Albertina Louisa Haeg, his wife, in his lifetime, and on the 17th day of July, 1889, executed certain deeds of conveyance of his real property, in separate parcels, to his several children, parties to this action, intending thereby to make a division thereof among them. Among these deeds was one running to the defendant Fred Haeg as grantee of the forty-acre tract in controversy here. These deeds he intended to have delivered to the several beneficiaries just before or immediately after his decease, which subsequently occurred, on 3d day of February, 1891.

The deeds were not in fact actually delivered to the grantees until after his decease, and on this ground, and the further ground also insisted on by the plaintiffs, that they were not in his lifetime delivered to or placed in the custody of a third party, in trust to deliver to the grantees at the appointed time, they claim that they never took effect as conveyances, and they therefore ask to have the same set aside and annulled.

We will first inquire whether the record discloses evidence tending to show that the deeds were placed in the control, custody, or possession of a third party, with instructions to deliver them to the grantees named, in pursuance of his declared purpose, and sufficient to support a finding of...