In re Bremer's Estate
| Decision Date | 07 June 1911 |
| Citation | 131 N.W. 667,151 Iowa 449 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Estate of William Bremer, Deceased, W. E. BREMER, Appellant, v. G. J. HAAG, Executor of said Estate, Appellee |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Bremer District Court.--HON. J. J. CLARK, Judge.
THE defendant is the executor of the estate of William Bremer. The plaintiff filed a claim against the estate for damages in the sum of $ 8,000 for breach of an alleged contract. The defendant, executor, disapproved the claim, and the same was brought on for trial. The trial was had before the court without a jury. The plaintiff's claim was dismissed at his cost and he has appealed. Affirmed.
Affirmed.
Dawson & Wehrmacher, for appellant.
Hagemann & Farwell, for appellee.
William Bremer died in June, 1908. His wife died in 1905. The plaintiff was their adopted son and was their only heir at law. The decedent left a will which was duly probated, and which distributed his estate among many different beneficiaries, of which the plaintiff was one. The plaintiff's claim is that in 1904 the decedent promised to give him a certain farm of two hundred and forty acres located in Minnesota, on condition that he should continue to reside in the town of Summer as long as his foster father should live. At the time of this alleged agreement the plaintiff owned and occupied a home in Sumner and had been a resident therein for some years. It is claimed, however, that he was proposing to move to Minnesota and to occupy the farm in question, and that this was the occasion of the agreement. The answer of the executor denies such agreement, and pleads its invalidity in various forms, which can be noticed later.
I. The principal point urged upon us by the appellant is that the alleged agreement was established by undisputed testimony, and that the finding of the trial court is contrary to the evidence. The only witness who testified directly to the alleged agreement was the wife of the plaintiff. Her direct evidence was as follows:
William Bremer, deceased, was the owner of some land in Minnesota in the year 1904. He owned two hundred and forty acres in Grant county, Minnesota, near the town of Herman. Remember a conversation that William Bremer, deceased, had with my husband in the fall of 1904, with reference to some Minnesota land. I took no part in that conversation. He said he should stay here as long as we lived--as they lived here, and then after their death then he could do with the farm just as he pleased, but he should stay here as long as they lived, and he promised him to stay here. Did not take any part in this conversation. Q. State who you mean by 'he.' A. Well, my husband should stay here as long as his father and mother lives, he should stay here; and after their death why he could do as he pleased; and he promised them to stay here as long as they lived, and he stayed. Mr Bremer, deceased, said that to my husband. Q. And then what did your husband say in response to that? A. He said: That conversation was had in Sumner. In our place that he should stay. I heard a conversation between my husband and William Bremer, deceased, about my husband going to leave Sumner at that time. Q. Now, you may state what was said with reference to that subject. A. Well, he was going to go on a farm, and he said he was going to live on a farm, and father said, and he promised them to stay. Q. When you say 'he,' who was that that promised that? A. My husband promised him to stay. William Bremer, deceased, and his wife at that time were about 72 years of age. My husband was the only son. William Bremer, deceased, had no other children. My husband and I lived in Sumner until after the death of William Bremer and his wife. Q. Did you hear anything in that conversation in which you took no part wherein anything was said about this Minnesota land? A. Well, for the present they talked that he was going away and talked the matters over, and then he did not want to leave him--to have him go--that is, W. E. Bremer. Q. Instead of saying 'he' just mention the name of the party that spoke. A. That W. E. Bremer was going to live on a Minnesota farm and Mr. William Bremer did not want to leave him go on the farm. Q. And then what did he say? A. He should stay here--W. E. Bremer should stay here as long as they lived; and after their death why then he could do just as he pleased--the farm be his. Q. What farm were they talking about? A. The Minnesota farm.
We are not prepared to concede that this evidence disclosed sufficient facts to constitute a binding and valid contract. Passing that question, however, it is sufficient to say that the evidence at best is meager and not persuasive in its circumstances. Some corroborating evidence was introduced. Such corroboration consists of some admissions of the elder Bremer to the effect that the farm was his son's and that he was going to give it to him. It is urged that the testimony of the wife was uncontradicted and that the court was bound therefore to accept it as true. This contention can not be sustained. The alleged conversation to which she testified had no other witness than herself. In the nature of the case, therefore, it could not be contradicted by direct denial. It was the duty of the court nevertheless to scan it carefully and to weigh it in the light of all the circumstances appearing in evidence. This point is discussed at some length in Holmes v. Connable, 111 Iowa 298 82 N.W. 780, and we need not add to such discussion. Weighing this testimony in the light of all the circumstances appearing in evidence, we think the trial court was justified in finding that the plaintiff's claim was not proved. The after conduct of both father and son was not consistent with any claim of ownership of such farm on the part of the son. And this seems to have been the controlling consideration with the trial court in rejecting plaintiff's claim. It appears in evidence that the father and son had been in partnership in the implement business. This business was traded for the land in question. The title was taken in the name of the father. There is some suggestion in the testimony that this was done because it was his money that was invested in the implement business. At least, there is no claim made by the plaintiff that the title was held in trust for the firm. In September, 1907, the father and son had a settlement of the partnership business whereby the son signed a written acknowledgment of "full settlement of said firm" and that "I have no claim or demand of any of the assets of said firm nor as to any of the property at the time of settlement and dissolution of said firm nor as to any of the property after the dissolution of said firm arising out of said business and sale of...
To continue reading
Request your trial