Hill v. Hairston
| Decision Date | 02 December 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 81.,81. |
| Citation | 299 Mich. 672,1 N.W.2d 34 |
| Parties | HILL v. HAIRSTON et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Suit to cancel a deed by George Hill, administrator of the estate of Elenora Turner, also known as Ella Turner, deceased, against Rev. Samuel L. Hairston, and others. From a decree for the plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Decree vacated and decree rendered for defendants.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Washtenaw County, in Chancery; George W. Sample, Judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
James N. McNally, Jr., of Detroit (Tilden M. Gallagher, of Detroit, of counsel), for defendants and appellants.
Lewis, Rowlette & Brown, of Detroit, for plaintiff and appellee.
This is an appeal from a decree cancelling a deed executed by Ella Turner on May 31, 1935, by which she conveyed a small farm in Washtenaw county to defendant, Rev. Samuel L. Hairston. Ella Turner died in the City of Detroit on July 15, 1940, at the age of 70. Plaintiff is her nephew and the administrator of her estate. Defendant Hairston is the head of a church known as St. Paul's Universalist Spiritualist Association of Christ, which he organized in 1929. Prior to 1930, the deceased was a member of the Second Baptist Church in Detroit. She gave up this membership to join defendant's church.
Ella Turner had $5,587.54 on deposit in a bank on February 11, 1933, and a balance of $1,117.50 at the time of her death. Plaintiff testified that he knew that she advanced money to defendant or his church at various times. A promissory note in the sum of $125, payable to Ella Turner, secured by a chattel mortgage on the furnishings of defendant's church, was received in evidence. Both these instruments bore defendant's signature. Plaintiff also testified that his aunt was a roomer in Hairston's home until 1932 or 1933. However, at the time the deed was executed, Ella Turner was living at her brother's home in Detroit.
The only testimony pertaining to the issues of mental incompetency and undue influence was given by Mary Johnson and Hattie M. Day, but practically all this testimony is confined to a period subsequent to the execution of the deed. Mary Johnson, with whom the deceased lived during the last four years of her life, testified that during this time she was in a feeble condition. Hairston and his wife visited Ella Turner quite often, talked with her alone, and occasionally took her out. She said that, ‘After visiting with Rev. Hairston and the members of his church she would act just like she was drunk or something;’ that she would sometimes call out for Hairston even though he was not present. On various occasions, Ella Turner sent Mary Johnson to Hairston for medicine, and he gave her some herbs that looked like senna leaf tea.
Hattie M. Day, a niece of the deceased, testified that, after Ella Turner's husband, Charles Turner, died in 1931, her aunt accused her of trying to get money from her and charged her with not being a Christian. Because of this, Hattie Day returned a note for $375 that her aunt had given her for her share of her uncle's (Frank Turner's) interest in the farm.
Hairston was called as an adverse witness under the statute, 3 Comp.Laws 1929, § 14220 (Stat.Ann. § 27.915) and, over objection of his counsel that conversations between the deceased and himself were privileged (see 3 Comp.Laws 1929, § 14215 [Stat.Ann. § 27.910]), testified to the following facts: He was 45 years of age, had been married four times, had been blind since 1925, and studied by having someone read to him. His studies included ‘mediumship, psychology, Biblical study and disseminating the teachings of Christ.’ Although he never prescribed any medicine for Ella Turner, he went to the drug store and bought what medicine she wanted. He said: He also said he practiced ‘psychological thereapy,’ and prayed for Ella Turner whenever she asked him to do so.
He said that he had known Ella Turner since approximately 1926, and that he only advised her on spiritual matters. He claimed to know nothing about the deed until he was advised by attorney McNally that the title to the property had been put in his name. He afterwards received the deed through the mail from the register of deeds office in Ann Arbor.
Defendant admitted that he had been arrested and charged with reading fortunes by tea leaves, but said he was discharged from custody because the judge said that, being blind, he could not read tea leaves.
Counsel of record for the defendant, who had also been attorney for Ella Turner at the time the deed was executed, testified for the defendant. The trial judge questioned the propriety of counsel testifying, but permitted him to do so, with certain restrictions. The trial judge properly called counsel's attention to In re Dwyer's Estate, 251 Mich. 346, 232 N.W. 256, 258, where the court said: Counsel stated that Hairston knew nothing of the deed until he had been informed that Ella Turner had given him the property.
Other witnesses testifying for the defendant described Ella Turner as the ‘SupremeMother’ of Hairston's church. One said that she had been told by Ella Turner that she loved Reverend Hairston as a son and wanted him to have all her property. Another said that Mrs. Turner told her: ‘I am just trusting in the Lord and I am so happy. I am just waiting on the Lord's will. Reverend has done so much for me. For 40 years I was a member of Second Baptist Church and when I went to Reverend I was almost on the verge of death. The doctor had given me up to die and I went to Reverend and he healed me. And she says, ‘I never will be able to do enough for him.’ And she told me that she had willed him this farm and she says, ‘I don't know of anyone else I would rather have it than he. If it hadn't been for him I would have been gone years ago.’' Still another testified that, in March of 1940, some three or four months prior to her death, Ella Turner made a statement to the entire congregation regarding her property, as follows: “Dear Christian brother and sisters. I want to make a statement here before my brothers and sisters in the church,' she said. ‘The rumor is out that Reverend Hairston has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Papazian v. Goldberg (In re Mardigian Estate)
...burden does not rest upon the [proponent of the will] to show that the transaction was free from undue influence." Hill v. Hairston , 299 Mich. 672, 679, 1 N.W.2d 34 (1941). That is, the presumption historically did not shift the ultimate burden of proof to show undue influence. In re Baile......
-
Krisher v. Duff
...property devised to one in a confidential or fiduciary relationship, In re Cotcher's Estate, 274 Mich. 154, 264 N.W. 325; Hill v. Hairston, 299 Mich. 672, 1 N.W.2d 34; presumption of delivery of deed raised by recording, Gibson v. Dymon, 281 Mich. 137, 274 N.W. 739; Blodgett v. Snobble, 295......
-
Wood's Estate, In re
...... See our similar comment in Hill v. Harbor Steel, Mich., 132 N.W.2d 54. . We have held with respect to statutory presumptions that in the absence of 'clear, ...Hairston, 299 Mich. 672, 1 N.W.2d 34, the review was de novo and so this Court itself was sitting as trier of the facts. However, it is our view now that ......
-
Cebulak v. Lewis
...relationship will be considered as having been procured through undue influence until rebutted by competent testimony (Hill v. Hairston, 299 Mich. 672, 1 N.W.2d 34), and also to the presumption of a mother's fitness for custody of a child under 12 years of age. (Eichholtz v. Eichholtz, 319 ......