Lambert v. Lambert
| Decision Date | 16 July 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 2245,2245 |
| Citation | 106 A.2d 729,82 R.I. 166 |
| Parties | LAMBERT v. LAMBERT et al. Eq. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Grim & Littlefield, Benjamin W. Grim, Providence, for complainant.
William B. Sweeney, Providence, George Roche, West Warwick, for respondent.
This bill in equity was brought to obtain relief in the nature of specific performance of an oral promise by a father to make a will devising to one of his sons a poultry farm located in the city of Warwick in this state. After a hearing in the superior court on bill, answer and evidence, a decree was entered denying and dismissing the bill of complaint. The cause is here on the complainant's appeal from that decree.
The complainant Leroy L. Lambert is a son of Daniel J. Lambert, Sr., who died March 18, 1946 at the age of eighty-six. The respondents are Daniel J. Lambert, Jr. and Clara A. Putnam, the other son and the daughter respectively of the deceased. No answer was filed by the daughter and a decree pro confesso was taken against her. The controversy is therefore between the two sons.
The evidence for complainant tends to show that the father, who had taught agriculture at Rhode Island State College for years, operated a fancy poultry farm in the city of Warwick; that in 1911, when complaint graduated from that college and had offers to work elsewhere, his father promised to will him the poultry farm if he, complainant, would 'stay and work with him' on said farm; that this promise or arrangement was repeated to complainant and substantially made known by the father to some of their mutual friends at different times thereafter; and that complainant accepted the promise in good faith and spent all of his time doing the principal or heavy work on the farm while the father lived.
The complainant testified that his father was always in fear of Daniel J. Lambert, Jr., the other son, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, because he was a troublemaker; that pursuant to the above-mentioned promise and to avoid subsequent difficulty with respondent the father made a deed of the farm to complainant; and that such deed was not recorded and was made under certain conditions which are stated in more detail in Lambert v. Lambert, 77 R.I. 463, 77 A.2d 325, where this court set aside the deed on the ground of nondelivery.
According to complainant, the father also made a will in which the fourth clause reads as follows: 'I give, bequeath and devise to my son, Leroy L. Lambert, my homestead consisting of my dwelling, farm buildings and farm lands in fulfillment of a promise made to him to do so, if he remained with me and assisted in the conduct of my farm, all of which he has done.' He testified that such will was destroyed under circumstances which were explained and a copy thereof was introduced in evidence through the lawyer who had drawn it; that the father also had consulted such lawyer concerning his desire to eject respondent from a house on the farm in which the latter had been living; that respondent had given the father much cause for worry; that he had taken certain assets which belonged to the farm; and that by threats had ultimately influenced the father into making a later will devising the property in equal shares to complainant, respondent, and their sister. It appears that this will has been filed in the probate court but as yet it has not been proved and allowed.
The respondent apparently concedes that complainant has spent all his life working with the father on the farm; that he, respondent, has lived continually in a house on the property; and that he has followed different occupations for others. But he disputes the circumstances under which the first will was destroyed, and by his plea of the statute of frauds and by the evidence it is claimed that no agreement has been shown by complainant with sufficient particularity to be capable of specific performance; that according to complainant's own testimony the alleged agreement was merely to 'work with' the father on the farm and to have during the years 'a partnership' between complainant and the father; and that complainant received pay and other benefits from his work on the farm pursuant to that express understanding, all of which is not in accordance with the agreement to devise the farm as alleged in the bill of complaint.
The respondent also claims that while complainant's evidence of the alleged will, which was destroyed, appears to be strong, yet the father in any event knew of its destruction; that he also knew of the provisions in the destroyed will but nevertheless had a lawyer draw another will disposing of the property differently, that is, in equal shares among all three of his children; that this new will never was changed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. Thompson
...performance of one party is demonstrated, if the performance is "referable exclusively to the contract." Lambert v. Lambert, 82 R.I. 166, 171, 106 A.2d 729, 731 (1954). See also Baumgartner v. Seidel, 75 R.I. 243, 246, 65 A.2d 697, 698 (1949). Thus, if the alleged contract is supported by c......
-
Chamberland v. Goldberg, 2724
...cite Oakland Cemetery Co. v. Smith, 54 R.I. 136, 170 A. 492, Maher v. James Hanley Brewing Co., 23 R.I. 323, 50 A. 330, Lambert v. Lambert, 82 R.I. 166, 106 A.2d 729, and several other cases decided in this and other jurisdictions. The authorities quoted and relied on by respondents are rea......
-
Randall v. Randall
...the contract.” Thompson v. Thompson, 495 A.2d 678, 680 (R.I.1985) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Lambert v. Lambert, 82 R.I. 166, 170–71, 106 A.2d 729, 731 (1954); Spencer v. Spencer, 25 R.I. 239, 241, 55 A. 637, 637–38 (1903). Accordingly, such an oral agreement will be bindi......