Howard v. Farr
| Decision Date | 30 June 1911 |
| Docket Number | 17,054 - (182) |
| Citation | 131 N.W. 1071,115 Minn. 86 |
| Parties | B. F. HOWARD v. CHANDLER FARR and Another |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action by the administrator of the estate of Cordelia Ingalls deceased, against defendant Farr and Jennie Grant, in the district court for Chisago county to recover $7,000, for money and property belonging to the estate of said decedent which the deceased had deeded to defendants. At the beginning of the trial defendants' motion that the court direct plaintiff to elect whether he intended to prosecute the case as an action for damages for fraud and deceit, or as an action for an accounting for the proceeds of the sale of land, or as an action for the recovery of consideration for land unpaid, was denied. The case was tried before Stolberg J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $6,731.13. From an order denying defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial they appealed. Reversed and judgment for defendants ordered.
Conveyance -- undue influence -- burden of proof.
In an action to recover the value of land conveyed by a sister to her brothers on the ground that the deed was procured through undue influence, the burden of proof is upon plaintiff.
Conveyance -- evidence.
Evidence considered, and held insufficient to make out a prima facie case sufficient to justify the submission to the jury of the question whether the deed was procured by undue influence.
Action by administrator -- limitation of action.
In an action by an administrator of the estate of a deceased person to recover the value of land conveyed by such person, on the ground that the deed was procured by fraud or undue influence, where the facts alleged to constitute the fraud or undue influence are discovered by the heirs of the grantor, and the administrator is appointed and the suit commenced more than seven years after such discovery, the action is barred by the statute of limitations.
Cross-examination.
When a witness on cross-examination is asked to disclose particular facts in his past life of a character that tend to disgrace him, but which are wholly irrelevant to any issue and have no fair tendency to throw light on the credibility of the witness, an objection should be sustained.
Lind, Ueland & Jerome, for appellants.
Miller & Clapp and Alfred P. Stolberg, for respondent.
This action was brought in October, 1908, by plaintiff, as special administrator of the estate of Cordelia Ingalls, deceased, to recover the value of two hundred acres of land in Chisago county, deeded May 12, 1899, by Cordelia Ingalls to defendant Chandler Farr and Henry Farr, since deceased. The complaint charged that Cordelia Ingalls was of unsound mind when she made the deed, that the deed was without consideration, and was procured from her by the fraud and undue influence of defendants. The answer admitted the conveyance, but claimed it was for a valuable consideration, denied the charges of the complaint, and pleaded the statute of limitations. The issues were tried to a jury, and a verdict was rendered in plaintiff's favor and against both defendants for the value of the land, with interest, amounting to $6,731.13. Defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, and appealed from the order denying such motion.
1. The first and chief question presented is as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the decision of the jury that the deed was obtained by defendants through fraud or undue influence. The material facts as shown by the evidence are as follows:
Cordelia Ingalls was the widow of Ephraim Ingalls, who died in 1894. Their only child was a daughter, Anna, who lived with her parents on their farm in Sunrise township, Chisago county, and afterwards in the village of North Branch in a house which had come to Ingalls for life by the will of his mother; the reversion being in the daughter. Anna married B. F. Howard, plaintiff, in 1879, and in 1884 they moved to Duluth, where they have since lived. After the Howards moved to Duluth, Mrs. Ingalls visited her daughter there at times, but for many years prior to the transaction in question had not visited her. Mrs. Ingalls had a younger sister, the defendant Jennie Grant, who with her husband, in February, 1898, went to live with Mrs. Ingalls, who was then about sixty-two years of age and in poor health. Defendant Chandler Farr and Henry Farr were brothers of Mrs. Ingalls and Mrs. Grant. They were bachelors, and lived together with their aged mother and a housekeeper on their farm on Sunrise Prairie, some eight miles east from North Branch. Another brother was Egbert Farr, who lived about four miles east of the village. The relations between Mrs. Ingalls and her sister and brothers were always very friendly. Egbert managed her business affairs. She frequently visited Chandler and Henry at the farm.
In October or November, 1898, she went on one of these visits. Mr. Grant, her sister's husband, accompanied her. After arriving at her brothers' home, it turned cold and stormy, and she decided to remain through the winter. She was weak and frail physically, though mentally strong as ever. She assisted some in the housework, received visits from neighbors, and was contented and happy. In March she was very ill for a week or two, and her sister, Mrs. Grant, and daughter, Mrs. Howard, came to nurse her. Mrs. Howard remained three days, returning when her mother began to get better.
In January Mrs. Ingalls sold a forty-acre tract to one Lindblom. She sent for C. A. Holt, formerly probate judge of Chisago county, who prepared the deed and took her acknowledgment. The consideration was $580, and was paid over to her. In February she again sent for Judge Holt to prepare a deed of another forty acres to her brother Henry. This deed was executed and delivered to Henry; the consideration being work done for her by Henry since her husband's death. May 12, 1899, she again sent for Holt, and also for an old friend of hers, Julius Johnson, a neighboring farmer. She then executed and delivered the deed to Chandler and Henry involved in this case. The consideration named in this deed was $4,000. It is admitted that but $10 of this was paid. The only evidence of what the transaction really was is to the effect that Mrs. Ingalls had decided to live with her brothers the rest of her life. She wanted them to have the land; the agreement being that they would pay the $4,000 as and when she demanded it. Mrs. Ingalls continued to live with her brothers until her death in June, 1899. Mrs. Howard was present at the funeral. Defendant Farr told her then that her mother had conveyed to his brother and himself all the land. In 1902 Chandler and Henry Farr sold forty acres of the land for $770. In March, 1905, Henry deeded to Chandler an undivided half of the remaining one hundred sixty acres. Chandler conveyed an undivided half to Henry in July, 1905, and Henry reconveyed to Chandler in June, 1906. Shortly afterwards Chandler deeded this one hundred sixty acres to his sister, the defendant Jennie Grant, who in June, 1908, sold the land to one Peterson.
There is little, if any, evidence to substantiate the charge of fraud or undue influence, outside of the facts above recited. It is admitted that Mrs. Ingalls' mind was perfectly sound. It is entirely clear that she went to visit her brothers of her own accord, as she had done many times before, and that she remained there at her own suggestion. The evidence is conclusive that she was happy and contented, and received frequent visits from old friends and neighbors. The evidence lacks even a suggestion of any duress or influence on the part of her brothers to induce her to deed them her property. They were old men, with ample means of their own. Plaintiff seems to lay much stress on the influence that defendant Jennie Grant exercised over her sister. This is based upon the testimony of the witness Jennie Elmgren, who was a girl brought up by Mrs. Ingalls, and dismissed when the Grants went to live with her. The witness' opinion that Mrs. Grant had more influence over Mrs. Ingalls than anybody else is worthless to prove undue influence. Mrs. Grant was not present at her brothers' house during her sister's stay there, except that she visited her at Christmas, again in January, attended her for some three weeks during her illness in March, and again in her last illness, and we see nothing to connect her with the transaction of the deed, other than Chandler's conveyance of one hundred sixty acres to her six years later. There is certainly nothing strange about this last conveyance. She was Chandler Farr's nearest relative, would be his sole heir at law, and he shortly afterwards went to live with her and her husband in the state of Washington.
Plaintiff urges that the admitted fact that the deed operated to cut off Mrs. Ingalls' natural heir, her daughter, creates a presumption of fraud, or at least is a strong circumstance to indicate fraud. We think that the most that should be said of this result of the deed is that it is a circumstance to be considered and given due weight. It does not make the deed presumptively fraudulent, any more than a will devising the land to her brothers would have been presumptively fraudulent. There is evidence tending to show that Mrs Ingalls had become somewhat estranged from her daughter; but the evidence wholly fails to substantiate the claim that this feeling was induced by any words or actions of defendants. The daughter had lived at a distance from her mother for many years, and visits between them had been few. She may well have thought that her daughter was sufficiently well provided for by her husband and...
To continue reading
Request your trial