Higgins v. Peterson

• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BEALS, J.
• Citation: Higgins v. Peterson, 274 P. 186, 150 Wash. 620 (Wash. 1929)
• Decision Date: 07 February 1929
• Docket Number: 21324.
• Parties: HIGGINS et al. v. PETERSON.

274 P. 186

150 Wash. 620

HIGGINS et al. v. PETERSON.

No. 21324.

Supreme Court of Washington

February 7, 1929

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; William J. Steinert, Judge.

Action by Neaola Taylor Higgins and another against L. A. Peterson as administrator of the estate of Lars Peterson, deceased. From a judgment dismissing the action, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

William Martin, of Seattle, for appellants.

J. C McKnight, of Seattle, for respondent.

BEALS J.

Plaintiffs set forth in their amended complaint three causes of action. In the first, that Mary Taylor Peterson, the mother of the plaintiff Neaola Taylor Higgins (who will hereafter be referred to as though she were the sole plaintiff), and of C A. J. Taylor and of the defendant L. A. Peterson, died intestate, at Seattle, Wash., on or about March 19, 1898, leaving the three children above named as her sole heirs at law and leaving property in King county; that no administration was ever had upon the estate of Mary Taylor Peterson; that plaintiff and her mother, on or about August 1, 1893, had entered into an oral partnership for the purpose of conducting an oyster house at 202 Yesler Way, Seattle, and that this business was conducted by plaintiff and in her own name up to the time of her marriage in 1904; that the business was profitable and that no settlement was ever had between plaintiff and her mother; that one Lars Peterson, defendant's intestate, with whom Mary Taylor Peterson was living, she passing as his wife, falsely represented to plaintiff that he was her stepfather and that plaintiff believed that he occupied that relationship to her and relied upon him, and that by reason of the situation as plaintiff believed it to be plaintiff permitted Lars Peterson to receive a considerable portion of the profits of the restaurant business, and that he invested the same from time to time with the understanding that the proceeds were to be the property of plaintiff and plaintiff's mother, and that Lars Peterson promised plaintiff to make his will in which should be recognized, by devise to her, plaintiff's interest in this property; that Lars Peterson acquired a large amount of valuable property under this agreement, and did, during the month of October, 1908, execute a will devising to plaintiff a considerable interest in his estate; that plaintiff relied upon Mr. Peterson's promises to protect her interest in the property, and therefore permitted him to continue to handle and control the same; that Lars Peterson died at Seattle September 20, 1924; and that defendant was appointed special administrator of his estate, took possession of Lars Peterson's will, destroyed the same, and refused to recognize plaintiff's interest in the estate, a half interest in which, of the value of $176,000, belongs to plaintiff.

In her second cause of action, plaintiff alleged that her interest in the property of the estate of Lars Peterson, as one of the heirs of her mother, Mary Taylor Peterson, was the sum of $58,666.66, for which amount plaintiff had filed a claim against the estate, which claim defendant rejected.

In her third cause of action, plaintiff alleged the execution by Lars Peterson of a will devising to plaintiff one-half of his property and the destruction of this will by defendant to plaintiff's damage, in the sum of $176,000.

To this complaint defendant answered with denials and affirmative defenses. The trial resulted in the denial of any relief to plaintiff and the dismissal of the action, from which order of dismissal plaintiff has appealed.

It is not disputed that appellant's parents, Charles W. and Mary Taylor, were married in Sacramento, Cal., prior to 1875. Charles W. Taylor died in Walla Walla in the fall of 1909 and Mary Taylor (or Mary Peterson) died at Seattle in March, 1898. It does not appear that this couple were ever divorced. Appellant was born in October, 1875, and her brother C. A. J. Taylor in October, 1880. Respondent L. A. Peterson was born at Baker City, Or., September 6, 1884, and, it is admitted, was the son of Mary Taylor, who, it seems, was about this time living with Lars Peterson, now deceased, as his wife, being known as Mary Peterson. Respondent was always known as the son of Lars Peterson and Mary Peterson, and it was evidently, at least until recent years, believed by every one that they were his parents. Reference to the opinion in the case of In re Peterson's Estate, infra, will disclose the fact that it was at the time of the hearing in that proceeding assumed by all persons concerned that respondent was the son of Mary Taylor Peterson by her second husband, Lars Peterson. As far as disclosed by the record, the first intimation by any one that such was not the case is contained in a letter written by appellant to respondent under date of February 17, 1925, in which appellant says, referring to the estate of Lars Peterson, deceased: 'You claim sole heir. I suppose you believe that to be true but mother my father were never divorced so you are my full brother by law just the same as Asa and have no more right to Pete estate than Asa or I of this...