Heath v. Cuppel

• Decision Date: 11 April 1916
• Citation: 157 N.W. 527,163 Wis. 62
• Parties: HEATH v. CUPPEL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

163 Wis. 62

157 N.W. 527

HEATH

v.CUPPEL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 11, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; John S. Ludwig, Judge.

Suit by William F. Heath against Agnes Cuppel, individually and as the administratrix of the estate of Charles Cuppel, deceased, for the specific performance of a contract of adoption, in which Maud Heath, as administratrix of plaintiff's estate, was substituted as plaintiff. Decree for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The action was brought for a specific performance of an alleged agreement of adoption of the plaintiff by Charles Cuppel, deceased, and to enforce plaintiff's rights in the estate of Charles Cuppel, deceased, under such agreement.

The plaintiff was born in 1860 near Tilton, N. H. In July, 1866, his mother married Charles Cuppel, deceased, and thereafter resided with him as his wife in the county of Milwaukee. In July, 1870, the deceased wrote to one Mrs. Ames, in New Hampshire, a boarding house keeper with whom plaintiff was living, stating that the plaintiff's mother would call for him to bring him to Milwaukee, and that the deceased would adopt plaintiff as his son. This letter has been lost or destroyed. Plaintiff's mother called for plaintiff in New Hampshire and brought him to Milwaukee in 1870. Plaintiff took the name of Willie Cuppel (although he was sometimes called Heath), and lived at the home of deceased and wife in Milwaukee as one of the family. The deceased supported the plaintiff and sent him to school until he was 17 years of age. The family then moved to a farm and conducted a milk business, and plaintiff worked on the farm and delivered milk. Plaintiff and the deceased did not get along well together, and their relations became strained to a degree that when plaintiff was 22 years of age he left the Cuppel home because of serious differences with the deceased. When plaintiff finally departed for the West he dropped the name of Cuppel and was known as William Heath. He remained in the West for several years and married during this time. Cuppel knew nothing of his whereabouts nor of his marriage. In 1894 the plaintiff lost his home and property in the West through a fire, and with financial aid from the deceased he returned to the home of the Cuppels in Milwaukee county with his family. The deceased furnished a house for him free of charge, and also furnished the necessaries to plaintiff's family and paid plaintiff some money for his services. In 1896 plaintiff and the deceased had a disagreement, involving the marriage of Charles Cuppel, Jr., a young man whom the deceased had taken as a foundling and brought up as a member of his family. Plaintiff left the farm and never returned to it again, and thereafter saw the deceased only once for about an hour at decedent's office; nor did he return at the time of his mother's death in 1901.

In 1903 the deceased married the defendant, Agnes Cuppel, and he died in April, 1911. The deceased owned real estate at the time of his death appraised at $32,700, with the exception of the homestead. The evidence tends to show that the homestead has a market value of $65,000. He also had $11,502.36 worth of personal property. The estate was duly probated, and the real estate assigned to his widow as his heir. Due publication of notice as to creditors was given. Plaintiff attempted to file a claim against the estate for services, but it was not filed within the time fixed for filing claims against the estate, and hence was disallowed by the court. The trial court found as facts:

“That about the month of July, 1870, said Cuppel (deceased) wrote a letter to Mrs. Ames, the boarding house keeper with whom the plaintiff was boarding in New Hampshire, stating that his mother would shortly call for him to bring him to Milwaukee, and that said Cuppel would adopt the plaintiff as his own son. That said letter has been lost or destroyed. That all of plaintiff's rights against Cuppel are based on this letter.”

Also that:

“When plaintiff lived at the Cuppel home he relied on Cuppel's letter and expected to be adopted, but plaintiff knew, from and after he left Milwaukee and went West, from the relations existing between him and Charles Cuppel and from other facts and circumstances connected with his residence with Charles Cuppel, that said Cuppel would not adopt him as a son.”

The court held that plaintiff had established no ground for a specific performance of a contract of adoption, and entered judgment dismissing the...