Haynes v. Harriman

• Decision Date: 13 January 1903
• Citation: 117 Wis. 132,92 N.W. 1100
• Parties: HAYNES v. HARRIMAN ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

117 Wis. 132

92 N.W. 1100

HAYNES

v.HARRIMAN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Jan. 13, 1903.

Appeal from circuit court, Winnebago county; Geo. W. Burnell, Judge.

Action by Eleanor Haynes against Fred Eugene Harriman and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

This action was commenced October 25, 1899, to set aside a deed of conveyance of lands therein described, and executed March 30, 1898, by the plaintiff to one Ida E. Harriman, since deceased, on the ground that such execution was procured by fraud and undue influence, while the plaintiff was ignorant of the nature and contents of the paper, and also to discover and adjudge to the plaintiff $400 in money alleged to belong to the plaintiff, and left in the care and the custody of said Ida, and for an injunction. The complaint, among other things, alleges that said Ida died intestate March 21, 1899, leaving, her surviving, two minor children (the defendant Fred Eugene Harriman, 11 years of age, and the defendant Roy Marshall Harriman, 9 years of age) and her husband, the defendant Fred E. Harriman, who was appointed administrator of her estate August 1, 1899; that Ida was born November 21, 1865, and was the granddaughter of the plaintiff; that soon after Ida's birth she was left by her mother, Alice E. Herrick, of Rockford, Ill., in the care of the plaintiff, who reared and educated her, and made a home for her until she was married to the defendant Fred E. Harriman, November 3, 1886; that the plaintiff loved Ida, and treated her as her own child, and that between them there had always existed great love, esteem, and confidence for and in each other; that for 10 years the plaintiff had been a widow, living alone, and cared for and managed her property and business; that the plaintiff executed her last will and testament, with Frank W. Harriman and Mary E. Cooley as subscribing witnesses, bearing date March 25, 1898, wherein she stated that she was 72 years of age, and of sound mind and memory; that in and by the last will she gave and bequeathed to her daughter Alice E. Herrick $1, and to each of her other grandchildren (Edith H. Allen, Jessie E. Becker, and Frank H. Robinson) $1, and all of the rest and residue of the remainder of her estate, both real and personal, of every name and nature, she therein gave, bequeathed, and devised to her granddaughter Ida, aforesaid, to have and to hold to herself, her heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, forever, and thereby appointed the said Ida as the sole executrix thereof, and waived the giving of any bond by her; that such will is in evidence as Exhibit A; that the plaintiff executed a warranty deed of all of her real estate to the said Ida, bearing date March 30, 1898, subject to a mortgage of $300, and in which deed the plaintiff reserved “to herself the sole use, income, and benefit of said above described real estate for and during the period of her natural life”; that such deed is in evidence as Exhibit B, and F. W. Harriman and Clara Claasen are named as the subscribing witnesses thereto; that said Ida executed a bond to the plaintiff, bearing date March 30, 1898, in the penal sum of $5,000, conditioned to the effect that if the said Ida, her heirs, executors, or administrators, should well and truly pay the taxes, interest, and insurance premiums upon the real estate described for and during the lifetime of the plaintiff, and pay to the plaintiff, for and during her lifetime, $10 per month (provided, however, that the income derived from the rent of the premises above described, not occupied by the plaintiff personally for her home, should be deducted from said payments of $10 per month), and at the death of the plaintiff should give her a decent burial, and pay the expenses thereof, all without fraud or delay, then such obligation was to be void, otherwise to be and remain in full force; that such bond is in evidence as Exhibit C, and F. W. Harriman and Clara Claasen are named as subscribing witnesses to the same; that, to secure the conditions named in the bond, the said Ida gave back to the plaintiff a mortgage upon all of the premises so conveyed to her, bearing the same date, and having the same subscribing witnesses, and marked “Exhibit D.” To such complaint the defendant Fred E. Harriman put in three separate answers,--one for himself personally, one as guardian for such minor heirs, and the other as the administrator of the estate of said Ida,--each of which answers consisted of admissions, denials, and counter allegations. At the close of the trial the court found, as matters of fact, that the plaintiff executed and delivered to Ida the will, Exhibit A, and the warranty deed, Exhibit B, on the days they respectively bear date; that, at the time the plaintiff so executed and delivered said instruments, she understood the nature of the contract in and by said papers represented, and understood the contents and nature of each and all of the papers and said contract; that the said Ida, at the time of the execution and delivery by the plaintiff of Exhibit B, executed and delivered to the plaintiff Exhibit C, being the bond mentioned, and also Exhibit D, being the mortgage to secure such bond, and that the plaintiff accepted said last-named papers, Exhibits C and D, understanding and knowing the contents and nature thereof; that the execution and delivery of Exhibit B by the plaintiff to Ida, and the execution and delivery of Exhibits C and D by Ida to the plaintiff, constitute one contract, and said contract was instituted and brought about at the request and by and under the direction of the plaintiff, and no undue influence was used by any one with respect to plaintiff, nor was there any fraud, deception, or conspiracy of any kind practiced by any one with reference to said contract; that the said contract was the free act and deed, understandingly, deliberately, and intentionally made by the plaintiff; that, immediately upon and after the execution and delivery of said papers constituting said contract, the said Ida commenced to carry out and fulfill the obligations thereby imposed upon her, and from thence on until her death did carry out and fulfill each and all the obligations in and by said contract imposed upon her, and during all of said time the plaintiff accepted and received from Ida, and used to her own advantage, all the benefits secured to her under and by virtue of said contract; that since the death of Ida the defendants, by and through the administrator of the estate of Ida, have fully carried out and performed on their part the conditions of said contract so far as the plaintiff would permit the same to be done, and have always been, and are still, ready and willing to fully perform all the obligations of said contract with relation to the plaintiff; that each and all the material allegations of the several answers of the defendants in this action are sustained by the proofs; that the allegations of the complaint, so far as they tend to invalidate said contract, are not sustained by the proofs. And the court finds, as conclusions of law, that the defendants are entitled to judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits, and ordered judgment to be entered accordingly. From the judgment so entered, the plaintiff brings this appeal.Wesley Mott, for appellant.

A. M. Spencer and Humphrey Pierce, for respondents.

CASSODAY, C. J. (after stating the facts).

The principal question presented is one of fact. That fact was resolved by the trial court in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff. The important question is whether such finding is against the clear preponderance of the evidence. To appreciate the evidence, it is necessary to...