In re Williams' Estate
| Citation | 106 Mich. 490,64 N.W. 490 |
| Parties | IN RE WILLIAMS' ESTATE. |
| Decision Date | 01 October 1895 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
Error to circuit court, Kent county; William E. Grove, Judge.
Proceedings in the nature of a presentation of a claim by Sophia Williams to the commissioners of the estate of Marie L. Williams deceased. There was a verdict allowing the claim, and judgment thereon, and the administrator brings error. Affirmed.
Mark Norris, for appellant.
W. W Mitchell (Claude R. Buchanan, of counsel), for appellee.
This is an appeal by the administrator from the allowance of the claim of Sophia Williams. The claim as presented to the commissioners was as follows: "The said Sophia Williams avers and claims damages in the sum of thirty thousand dollars for the nonfulfillment of a verbal contract made and entered into by and between herself, the said Sophia Williams, and the deceased, said Marie Williams, in substance and effect as follows: Said complainant avers: That she is now a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the county of Kent, state of Michigan, and is 43 years of age. That she was born in Germany, and came to this country with a widowed mother, when she was seven years old. That when she was 13 years old sent went to live with Thomas R. Williams and the said Marie Williams, who were husband and wife, and resided on a farm near Battle Creek, Mich. That she went to live with said Thomas R. Williams under a written contract made between her mother and the said Thomas R. Williams that she, said Sophia, should stay and reside with them until she was 18 years of age, in consideration of which they were to board her, school her, and, when she became 18 years of age, give her a cow and some other personal property. That said Thomas R. Williams and Marie Williams had no children, and that she lived with them, and took their name, in accordance with said contract; and that during said time she was treated by them in every respect as they would treat their own child. That after she became 18 years of age, she still continued to reside with them, they having in the meantime moved onto a farm in Kent county, hereinafter more particularly described. That said Thomas R. Williams became blind, and subsequently insane, and died in the insane asylum at Kalamazoo in February, 1872. That at the time of his death, deceased, Marie Williams, was the owner of the farm on which they resided, of about 140 acres, described as follows: 'East half of southeast quarter, the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter, and the south half of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of section four, town six north, range 2 west.' That there was about 50 acres of said land improved for cultivation, with ordinary farm buildings, the remainder of the land being timbered land, uncleared, and uncultivated. Upon which farm was a mortgage of eight hundred dollars, with some accrued interest, and said Marie Williams was owing at that time some ten or twelve hundred dollars of debts, which she had contracted in taking care of and providing for her husband prior to his death, and that the farm was at that time of the value of about six or seven thousand dollars. She had no other means, and but very little personal property on the farm. She proposed to sell a portion of the farm sufficient to pay the indebtedness she had contracted in taking care of her husband, and clearing the balance of the farm of the mortgage of eight hundred dollars. That the said Sophia claimed that by the united efforts of both of them they could pay those debts, and save the farm as a home for both of them, and that said Marie Williams, and the said Sophia Williams then and there, soon after the death of said Thomas R. Williams, entered into a contract or agreement by which they agreed that they should live together, work together, employ all their energy, knowledge, information, and ability, as long as they should live, and put the same into one common fund, try to pay off the indebtedness on the farm, and keep the same and any property that they might acquire, for the joint benefit of the two; and that they should be joint owners of the farm and all the property that they might acquire, and at the death of either the other should be absolute owner of the whole. The said claimant avers: That each in good faith went to work, and all their energy and perseverance they both possessed, and managed their affairs with all the energy, skill, and economy they possessed. That by their joint efforts they paid off said mortgage and said indebtedness which existed at the time of the making of said contract. That they cleared and improved 50 or 60 acres more of the farm, kept cows, sold milk and butter, raised stock, horses, and other things, until Marie Williams died on or about April, 1892, at which time they had said farm cleared from debt. They had horses, cows, hogs, hay and grain, farming tools and everything usually owned and possessed by farmers in this country, used and employed in the management of a farm of that character. They had also, from their savings, acquired money which they had on interest, amounting to over twelve thousand dollars. That the farm property, notes, and accounts during said time were all kept and carried out in the name of the deceased, Marie Williams, although that, upon the death of either, the survivor would be the owner of the whole; and that the said Marie Williams repeatedly promised the said Sophia Williams that by will or otherwise she would fix their property so this claimant, Sophia, would be the owner of the whole of it in case the said Marie should die first. The said Sophia Williams avers that she has in all things fully, particularly, and completely carried out her said contract, and was entitled in law and equity, upon the death of said Marie Williams, to be the absolute owner of all the estate and all the property rights in action that they possessed. The said Sophia Williams further avers that she firmly believes that she, Marie Williams, always intended to carry out and fulfill said agreement, but that she was taken sick, and by becoming unconscious some days before her death, and thereby failed to carry out said agreement. Claimant therefore avers that the property possessed by them, real, personal, and rights of action, was of the value of thirty thousand dollars and upwards, and that she is entitled to recover of and from said estate, as damages for the nonfulfillment of said contract, the
sum of thirty thousand dollars, and she therefore prays this claim may be allowed by said commissioners. She also makes a further claim for services performed by her for said Marie Williams during her lifetime for twenty years and upwards, and claims for such services the sum of thirty thousand dollars." The decedent left an estate which inventories at $28,394, of which $15,000 was real estate, and the balance personalty. The testimony offered by claimant tended to support the claim made. The jury gave a verdict of $14,500, but upon a motion for a new trial made by the estate, such new trial was granted, unless claimant would remit $4,500, and the claimant elected to remit. The estate appeals.
The court instructed the jury: That claimant was, under the testimony, a member of the Williams family and household. That the rules applicable to services rendered by a child to a parent controlled. That there could be no recovery in the absence of an express promise to pay. That "the single question is: Was there a promise by the deceased Marie Williams to pay the claimant for her services in consideration that she should remain with her, and render the services which she claims she has rendered during the lifetime of Mrs. Williams, as long as they both should live, and to pay for those services by a provision, by will or otherwise, so that the claimant would receive the fruit thereof upon her death?" That, "in order to warrant you in finding that there was such a promise, it is necessary for you to keep in mind the rule of law; and it is a rule of law that the testimony to support such a promise to warrant the finding of such a promise must be clear, distinct, and unambiguous; that it must lead your minds clearly to the conclusion that there was such a promise." That That ...
To continue reading
Request your trial