Highberger v. Stiffler

• Decision Date: 11 May 1864
• Parties: JOHN HIGHBERGER & WIFE, & OTHERS, v. SARAH STIFFLER.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

21 Md. 338

JOHN HIGHBERGER & WIFE, & OTHERS, v. SARAH STIFFLER.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

May 11, 1864

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Washington County, sitting as a Court of Equity:

The bill in this case was filed for the purpose of vacating a certain deed from the appellee to George Stiffler, the testator of the appellants. The bill states, that in the month of March 1849, and for a long time previous, the appellee owned a house and lot in Sharpsburg, Washington County, and that she resided in another house owned by her in which also her son, George Stiffler, resided with her.

That owing to her great age (some ninety years) and total inexperience in business, and her inability to read or write she depended on, and fully entrusted to her said son George the conduct of all her business, and that she frequently signed papers brought to her for her signature by her son George, without fully comprehending their meaning, but being satisfied with his assurances that it was for her interest and advantage to do so.

The bill then states that John Stiffler, another son of the appellee, being largely indebted unto divers persons contracted solely on his individual responsibility, her said son George Stiffler informed her that a certain Jacob H. Grove had a judgment against John, and was about to take out execution thereon, and that as John owned no property, Grove would seize upon the property of the appellee in payment thereof, and that at the same time the said George advised and persuaded her to assign to him certain notes, & c., and represented that by this course alone could she save her own property from being taken in execution for the debts of her son John. That confiding in her son George, and thinking it unjust that her property should be taken for the debts of another, she did sign certain papers, & c., by which she imagined she had rescued her property from the perils impending by reason of the debts of her son John.

The bill also states, that afterwards, to wit: in 1855, George Stiffler died, leaving his last will and testament, in which he appointed his two daughters, Mary, wife of Daniel Hill, and Elizabeth, wife of John Highberger, executrices of his will, who subsequently renounced their trust, and John Highberger and Daniel Hill were appointed administrators cum testamento annexo; that afterwards, on the 5th February 1857, Daniel Hill and John Highberger and others filed their bill in the Circuit Court for Washington County, sitting as a Court of Equity, against the infant children of Mary, wife of Daniel Hill, (but who had died intestate,) for a sale of the real estate of George Stiffler, in which it is stated that George Stiffler died seized and possessed of the property in question, and that this was the first intimation received by the appellee that the said premises were claimed by others, and that until after the death of her son George, she never supposed that any claim adverse to her own had been set up to the premises.

The bill then alleges, that if any such deed was signed or executed by the appellee, it was signed and executed in consequence of the fraudulent misrepresentations of her son George, and through his improper and over-weening influence over her, she being very old, feeble, inexperienced, and unable to read or to write; that she did not receive the moneyed consideration mentioned in the deed, and charges that the deed was not read to her, nor its effect or purport explained to her, but was obtained through fraud, & c., and is not binding. The bill then prays that the said deed be canceled, declared null and void, and for general relief. On the 25th of May 1859, the defendants filed their answer, admitting the death of George Stiffler, his last will as stated in the bill, the appointment therein of his daughters his executrices, their renunciation, and the appointment of Hill and Highberger, as stated in the bill; also the filing of the bill against the heirs of Mary Hill, whom they admit is dead, & c. But they deny all fraud in the obtention of the deed, insisting that it was a fair and bona fide transaction. They deny that the appellee was incapable of attending to her own affairs, but suggest that " at the time of filing her bill of complaint in this case, she was induced to do so because of undue and improper influences executed over her by reason of her imbecility, occasioned by advanced old age." And they aver that by her own shewing she should have sued by her committee or next friend, instead of filing the bill in her own name."

A commission was issued, under which the appellee proved as follows:

By Jeremiah Kuhn, that he knew the appellee and her son George, (the defendant's testator,) that the appellee lived with her son, that she never came to his store to purchase or settle for any thing; all this was done by George who bought articles for her, and settled for them, as he drew the " interest of her money which was out on interest; " that about the year 1850, George Stiffler (appellant's testator) came to his office (he was then a magistrate) and asked him and John Hill to go to his (George's) house; they went, and there took a list of articles. Witness then asked appellee whether she gave those articles to her son George? to which she replied, " Yes." Hill opposed this. But " George said he wished to save an administration on that property, and that he would make it all right with the other heirs."

As to the deed in question, the same witness Kuhn, says, that the above constituted all the business transactions with the appellee, except the " acknowledgment of a deed before him as magistrate, and the transfer of three or four notes, at the same time the deed was executed." He does not think the appellee was capable of knowing that she was assigning these notes to her own injury, " and he supposed from the condition of her mind that she was influenced to make those transfers by her son George." Afterwards, in 1850 or 1851, George Stiffler was charged with having all the appellee's property in his hands, and this charge he did not deny.

The fifth general interrogatory calls attention particularly to the execution of the deed in question. On that subject the following witnesses testified:

1st. Jeremiah Kuhn, that in 1849 George Stiffler sent for witness to come to his house, when he arrived there he found R. E. Cook, (a magistrate,) and George Stiffler; George brought his mother into the room, " and told her he wanted her to acknowledge that deed which Cook held in his hand, and make her mark, she came forward very feebly and made her mark." She was then about eighty-nine years of age. She acknowledged the deed, and then Cook pulled out three or four notes, one for $350, one for $500, one for $200 or $300, and a fourth, the amount not remembered. " Each of these notes had an assignment written on its back," to which the appellee made her mark. The deed was not read or explained to appellee, nor was any purchase money paid.

2nd. R. E. Cook, that George Stiffler told witness that his mother wanted him to come to the house to make transfers, & c. When deponent got there George went to the drawer and got the notes, and witness wrote the assignments on them. There was conversation in German between the mother and son, not understood by the witness. The deed was then produced. Deponent had written the deed at the request of George, and had taken it to the house that morning. The deed was acknowledged after some further conversation in German between mother and son. But deponent has no recollection whether it was read to her or not. No money was paid, nor was any thing said about money.

3rd. John Hill, that he went at the request of George Stiffler to his house, he thinks in company with Jeremiah Kuhn, and was present at the execution of an instrument of writing from Sarah Stiffler to George Stiffler. It was the only paper executed by her that deponent ever witnessed.

That the magistrate who drew up the instrument would still ask the old lady questions and " George would answer them." She did not say any thing. No part of the instrument, except the acknowledgment, was read to her. No money was paid, and witness " thought at the time that it was more George's instrument than the old lady's."

There was also proof that George Stiffler represented to his mother that the creditors of her son John were pressing for the payment of the debts due from John, and influenced her to believe that her property was liable, and in peril for John's debts.

The complainant further proved the declarations of George Stiffler, that he did not claim the property as his own, that he was only keeping it for his mother during her lifetime, and at her death it should be fairly and equally divided among her heirs.

There was also evidence that for many years before, and at the time of the execution of the deed, George Stiffler had been entrusted with the management and control of all the appellee's business; and that she was of sound and disposing mind, capable of making a valid deed, & c., and of managing her own business.

The appellant's witness, Rebecca Price, states, that she was well acquainted with Sarah Stiffler for more than twenty years. She told witness frequently, from the year 1849 to a short time previous to the death of George Stiffler, that she had made all her property over to her son George. That he was a kind son to her, and all she possessed was his; and she did not intend that any of her other children should have any of her property. That George took care of her, attended to all her business for her, and maintained her; and those were the reasons for which she gave her property to him. That George Stiffler exercised ownership over the property, had a stable...