Huston v. Regn

• Decision Date: 17 January 1898
• Docket Number: 187
• Citation: 184 Pa. 419,39 A. 208
• Parties: John P. P. Huston v. John Regn, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

39 A. 208

184 Pa. 419

John P. P. Huston v. John Regn, Appellant

No. 187

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January 17, 1898

Argued January 7, 1898 [Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Appeal, No. 187, Jan. T., 1897, by defendant, from decree of C.P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1896, No. 802, on bill in equity. Affirmed.

Bill in equity to compel the reassignment of an interest in a decedent's estate.

From the record it appeared that the controversy grew out of an assignment of an interest in the estates of several decedents, and an agreement to reassign such interest.

The two papers were as follows:

ASSIGNMENT.

"Know all Men by these Presents, That I, James P. Perot Huston, of the city of Philadelphia, for and in consideration of the sum of five hundred dollars, lawful money of the United States of America, unto me in hand well and truly paid by John Regn, of the same place, gentleman, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, do grant, bargain, sell, alien, enfeoff release, confirm, assign, transfer and set over, and by these presents have granted, bargained, sold, aliened, enfeoffed, released, confirmed, assigned, transferred and set over unto the said John Regn, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, all my estate, right, title and interest of whatsoever kind or nature, either at law or in equity, of, in and to the estates of my mother, Sarah Huston, deceased, my grandfather, William S. Perot, deceased, and my grandmother, Mary W. Perot, deceased, and to all and every part of each and every of said estates, and the proceeds thereof, to have and to hold unto the said John Regn, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns from henceforth, to his and their own proper use and benefit forever.

"And I do hereby nominate, constitute and appoint the said John Regn my true and lawful attorney, irrevocable, with full power of substitution of other attorneys under him, and give and grant to him, his executors, administrators and assigns, full power and authority in my name, or in the name of my executors or executor, administrators or administrator, or the survivors or survivor of them, to ask, demand, sue for, recover and receive the said right, title, interest, legacies, gifts and estate hereinbefore particularly set forth, from the executors, administrators or trustees of any and all of said estates, or the survivors and survivor of them, or from any other executor, administrator or person whomsoever, and to compound, acquit, release and discharge the same, I hereby ratifying and confirming all and whatsoever he or they shall lawfully do or cause to be done in or about the premises.

"In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this twenty-ninth day of July, 1895.

"(Signed) JAMES P. P. HUSTON."

AGREEMENT TO REASSIGN.

"Know all Men by these Presents, That I, John Regn, of the city of Philadelphia, gentleman, for and in consideration of the sum of one dollar, lawful money of the United States of America, unto me in hand well and truly paid by James P. Perot Huston, of the said city, also gentleman, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, do hereby covenant, promise and agree to and with the said James P. Perot Huston, that I will, at any time within one year from the date hereof, sign, seal, execute and deliver unto him a deed of assignment for all my right, title and interest in the estates of Sarah Huston, deceased; William S. Perot, deceased, and Mary W. Perot, deceased, upon the payment to me by him of the sum of five hundred and thirty dollars.

"In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this thirtieth day of July, A.D. 1895.

"(Signed) JOHN REGN. [SEAL.]"

BEITLER, J., found the facts to be as follows:

The testimony taken shows that about April, 1895, the plaintiff applied to the law firm of Thomas J. Martin & Bro. (composed of Thomas J. Martin, Jr., Esq., and Frank P. Martin, Esq.), to secure a loan on his interest in his mother's and grandfather's estate; that the firm made efforts to secure the loan but for a time without any success. In July, 1895, the defendant did pay to the plaintiff $300. What this payment was for is a disputed question. The plaintiff says that it was a loan. The defendant says it was paid for the purchase of the interest. Mr. Frank P. Martin says that early in July, 1895, he informed the plaintiff that he could not secure the loan and that subsequently the plaintiff and defendant concluded their negotiations (having met in the firm's office) and that the defendant acted in the matter upon information as to the quantity and value of the plaintiff's interest in the estate referred to -- given to him by the firm. The papers that were finally executed show that whatever the parties called the transaction it was in effect a pledge of the plaintiff's interest in his grandfather's, his grandmother's and his mother's estate, for while he by one paper assigned this interest to the defendant, the latter agreed to reassign at any time within a year upon payment to him of $530, which is the consideration named in the assignment, and with one year's legal interest added. The plaintiff received but $300. The defendant, however, paid $173.30 to Thomas J. Martin & Bro. for attorney fees and expenses.

The plaintiff admits that he agreed, when seeking the loan, to pay a bonus of $200, and both Frank P. Martin and the defendant testify that the plaintiff agreed to pay all the legal expenses, and was told that they would be $200. Just what these services were worth was not shown, but it appeared that to ascertain what estate the plaintiff had and its value, involved the study of three wills, the examination of the title to three or four properties and an ascertainment of their value, besides inquiry as to the value of his personal estate in the trustee's hands. The plaintiff has requested the trial judge to find as matter of fact that $50.00 would be a proper sum to charge for legal fees expenses and costs. No testimony has been produced to show that such would be a proper charge. The trial judge, upon the testimony before him, is unable to find that the sum paid by the defendant to Thomas J....