Keatley v. United States Trust Co.
Decision Date | 10 January 1918 |
Docket Number | 73. |
Citation | 249 F. 296 |
Parties | KEATLEY v. UNITED STATES TRUST CO. et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
John B Johnston, of New York City (Vine H. Smith, of New York City of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Stewart & Shearer, of New York City, for defendant in error United States Trust Co.
A. B Boardman, of New York City (Charles B. Fernald, of New York City, and George L. Shearer, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant in error O'Brien.
Before WARD and ROGERS, Circuit Judges, and LEARNED HAND, District judge.
This is a suit by Harry Wronkow Keatley against the executors of the last will and testament of Herman Wronkow, deceased, to recover the sum of $10,000, with interest from November 30, 1911. November 30, 1910, Wronkow died, leaving a large estate. April 25, 1894, he executed the following instrument and delivered it to Lydia Keatley, the plaintiff's mother, on or about April 30:
On the same day Mrs. Keatley executed and delivered to Wronkow the following instrument:
'Received from H. Wronkow the above stipulations and provisions, which I have voluntarily accepted for all claims I had, have, or may have, of all and whatever nature or action, for damages in courts of equity or United States.'
This transaction followed Mrs. Keatley's employment of an attorney to enforce certain demands she was making against Wronkow. Wronkow made some or all of the annual payments up to the time of the plaintiff's coming of age, March 31, 1904, but died without making any provision for him in his will.
The executors set up in their answer in bar of the plaintiff's claim the following release:
The plaintiff testified that he had known Wronkow from childhood, and had always been told that he was his guardian. Wronkow was a part of his Christian name, and Wronkow during his childhood gave him toys, took him to the theater, and treated him in a most intimate relation. July 29, 1909, the plaintiff came on from Washington, D.C., saw Wronkow in his office, and signed the release. He testified that when he did so he did not know of the existence of the instrument dated April 25, 1894, and his mother testified that she had never told him of it. The trial judge directed a verdict for the defendants on the ground that the release was a complete bar.
As the plaintiff executed the instrument, knowing that it was a release, it was at best voidable, and not void. Therefore, as the law stood until March 3, 1915, he could only have escaped from it by filing a bill in equity for cancellation, which he had not done. Standard Portland Cement Co. v. Evans, 205 F. 1, 125 C.C.A. 1; Hogg v. Maxwell, 218 F. 356, 134 C.C.A. 164. The act of March 3, 1915, added section 274b to the Judicial Code in the following words:
'Comp. St. 1916, Sec. 1251b.
The distinction between legal and equitable procedure has been jealously preserved by the Supreme Court. Bennett v Butterworth, 10 How. 669,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pringle v. Storrow
...to file a replication. U. P. R. R. Co. v. Syas, 246 F. 562, 158 C. C. A. 531; Plews v. Burrage (C. C. A.) 274 F. 881; Keatley v. U. S. Tr. Co., 249 F. 296, 161 C. C. A. 304, contra. It, however, contains no phraseology which would enable the court to require the filing of a Is there any pow......
-
Wenzel & Henoch Const. Co. v. Metropolitan Water Dist.
...S.C.A. § 398) gives to the plaintiff the right to plead these facts in a replication or reply. See dissent in Keatley v. United States Trust Co. et al. (C.C.A.2, 1918) 249 F. 296; Whitney Co. v. Johnson (C. C.A.9, 1926) 14 F.(2d) 24; Stamey v. United States (D.C.Wash.1929) 37 F.(2d) 188; En......
-
Lyons v. Empire Fuel Co.
...262 F. 465 LYONS v. EMPIRE FUEL CO. No. 3340.United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.January 6, 1920 ... Co. v. Syas (C.C.A. 8) 246 F. 561, 566, 158 C.C.A ... 531; Keatley v. Trust Co. (C.C.A. 2) 249 F. 296, 161 ... C.C.A. 304; Philippine Sugar ... ...
-
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Hammond
...all claims or causes of action he might have." The court then properly denied the motion. We have not overlooked Keatley v. United States Trust Co., 249 F. 296, 161 C. C. A. 304, in which this court had before it Judicial Code, § 274b, as amended by Act of March 3, 1915, c. 90 (38 Stat. 956......