In re Butterbrodt's Estate

• Decision Date: 06 April 1926
• Docket Number: 37203
• Citation: 208 N.W. 297,201 Iowa 871
• Parties: IN RE ESTATE OF LOUISE BUTTERBRODT. v. HENRY BUTTERBRODT, Administrator, et al., Appellants LOUISE LICHT, Appellee,
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

208 N.W. 297

201 Iowa 871

IN RE ESTATE OF LOUISE BUTTERBRODT.

LOUISE LICHT, Appellee, v. HENRY BUTTERBRODT, Administrator, et al., Appellants

No. 37203

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

April 6, 1926

Appeal from Cedar District Court.--JOHN T. MOFFIT, Judge.

ACTION to establish a claim against the estate, which was allowed by the jury. The objectors appeal.

Affirmed.

Geiger & Geiger and J. C. France, for Henry Butterbrodt, Fred Butterbrodt, and William Butterbrodt, appellants.

Johnson Donnelly & Lynch, for appellee.

Arthur Lund, Administrator, pro se.

ALBERT J. DE GRAFF, C. J., and EVANS and MORLING, JJ., concur.

OPINION

ALBERT, J.

Louise Licht filed a claim in this estate for services in the amount of $ 2,824. The administrator of the estate answered the claim, admitting that it was just and unpaid, and that there was an understanding and arrangement whereby claimant was to receive compensation for the services performed, and that claimant was entitled to reasonable compensation for said services, and asked that the reasonable value thereof be determined by the court. The three sons of the deceased appeared at this point in the proceedings, and moved to strike the answer of the administrator on various grounds, and the court sustained the motion and struck the answer. Just what right the heirs in an estate have to thus appear and contest a claim, we will not stop to determine, as the question is not raised in the case.

A full statement of the testimony is not necessary to the questions raised on this appeal. Suffice it to say that Henry Butterbrodt, Sr., and Louise Butterbrodt were husband and wife. He died about the year 1909. His wife, Louise, died on May 10, 1924. At the time the husband died, they were residing in the town of Lowden. He left surviving him six grown children, three boys and three girls. One of the daughters, the claimant herein, was married to A. H. Licht, and they lived a few doors from the residence of the parents. On the death of Henry Butterbrodt, there was a room fitted up for Louise, his wife, in the home of the Lichts, where she resided until her death. By certain provisions in her husband's will, she had a small income each year, which was deposited to her credit in the bank. At her death, her estate amounted to approximately $ 5,000. While she continued, during all of this time, to live with the Lichts, in the summer time she spent two or three months with her other children, who were not residents of Lowden. She was about 68 years of age when her husband died, and 83 years of age when she died. She was apparently afflicted with the weaknesses of advancing years, and suffered from cancer of the breast for a number of years prior to her death. She received the care and attention of the Lichts during all of this time, boarding and lodging with them, and it is admitted that they never received any payment therefor. Licht, the husband, assigned whatever rights he had in this claim to his wife, the claimant herein.

In the trial of the case, Licht, among other things, testified that he heard the conversation in 1909 between his wife and his mother-in-law with regard to the care and compensation for taking care of the deceased. This conversation occurred at the home of the Lichts, at the time Licht had collected certain rent money and deposited it in the bank for the deceased. On cross-examination, the witness said:

"When the rent was paid, I always told her about it, and she would say that she wanted Louise to have the rent."

A motion was then made to strike this purported conversation between Mrs. Butterbrodt and Licht, for the reason that it was violative of Section 11257, Code of 1924. Later, the claimant, Mrs. Licht, testified to a conversation had at the same time, in which she says she took no part. The conversation was between her mother and her husband, and covered about the same subject-matter. Thereafter, a motion was made to strike the testimony of both Licht and his wife, on the ground that it was in violation of the aforesaid section of the statute.

If the appellant be given the full benefit of all he claims about the testimony of these two witnesses, there was a conflict between them; and, this being so, the court was not in a position to determine this conflict; and the motion to strike was properly overruled. In view of the conflict in the...