Lewis v. Lewis

• Decision Date: 15 April 1904
• Citation: 57 A. 735,76 Conn. 586
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: LEWIS v. LEWIS et al.

57 A. 735

76 Conn. 586

LEWIS

v. LEWIS et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 15, 1904.

Appeal from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Ralph Wheeler, Judge.

Action by John S. Lewis against William I. Lewis and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, all parties appeal. Reversed,

Action of ejectment, brought to the superior court in Middlesex county. Facts found and judgment rendered by the court (Ralph Wheeler, Judge) that the plaintiff, by operation of section 4052 of the General Statutes of 1902, recover of the several defendants certain sums, and that upon the payment thereof to the plaintiff the title to the land claimed by each, respectively, be confirmed in him, and an appeal by all the parties for alleged errors in the findings and rulings of the court.

This is the same case as that reported in 74 Conn. 630, 51 Atl. 854, 92 Am. St. Rep. 240. The substantial allegations of the complaint are there recited. The judgment then reviewed, being one upon demurrer to the complaint sustained, having been set aside, and the cause remanded, the defendants answered. The answers contained sundry admissions and denials, and set up that the conditions contained in the deed of August 28, 1867, which are also recited in the report of the former case, and which we then held to be conditions subsequent, had been broken, re-entry made by the grantor, and possession thereafter acquired by him, which possession continued in him until his death, when it passed to the defendant William I. Lewis, his devisee, who, together with his grantees, his codefendants, has since remained in such possession. They also alleged matters of estoppel arising from delay in the assertion of the plaintiff's rights. The reply denied the allegations of breach of condition, re-entry, repossession thereof, and estoppel. The case was heard by the court, and the issues found for the plaintiff, and it was found that the plaintiff was entitled to the possession of the premises in question for the term of his life.

The court found true the allegations of the complaint with respect to the original ownership of the premises in question by John Lewis; his conveyance thereof by deed of August 28, 1867, herein known as "Exhibit A"; Henry C. Lewis' entry into possession under said deed; the latter's support of John Lewis, in accordance with the terms of the deed, until October 1, 1870; and John Lewis' departure from the premises on that day, never to return. The plaintiff was then four years of age, and lived with his father upon the premises. The events which succeeded are found as follows: When John Lewis left the premises, he removed to New York City, where he became sick, and was visited by his nephew William I. Lewis, one of the defendants; and lie subsequently went to Washington, D. C, where he lived until the time of his death, October 1, 1871, with the said William I. Lewis. After making his home with William I. Lewis, and being cared for by him, John Lewis became desirous that he should have the property in question, and formed the intention of giving and conveying it to him. With that intention, he executed and delivered to him a deed thereof dated March 10, 1871, herein called "Exhibit B." William I. Lewis was fully informed of the purpose of John Lewis, and accepted said deed. Thereafter John Lewis, in all his acts in reference to this property, was moved by the fixed purpose of perfecting the title in William I. Lewis, and of making the transfer certain and effectual. At the time when Exhibit B was delivered, John Lewis represented to William I. Lewis that Henry C. Lewis had not performed and was not performing the conditions set forth in Exhibit A, and that he (the said John Lewis) was by reason thereof entitled to repossess himself of said premises, and to enjoy his former estate therein; and William I. Lewis was fully informed by John Lewis of the facts as claimed by him (John Lewis), and was advised by him to go and demand possession of the premises. Shortly thereafter William I. Lewis visited Westbrook, and, with said deed in his possession, and claiming by authority thereof, went upon the premises and demanded of Henry C. Lewis that he relinquish possession of said premises to him (the said William I. Lewis), but Henry C. Lewis refused to surrender possession. William I. Lewis thereafter returned to Washington, and on May 27, 1871, Exhibit B was filed for record in the office of the town clerk of the town of Westbrook. On June 16, 1871, John Lewis executed and delivered to William I. Lewis a power of attorney to attend to all business of the former "within the state of Connecticut of whatever kind or description that is now necessary to attend to or that may become necessary during the time the said Wm. I. Lewis may remain in said state," and on or about said day delivered to William I. Lewis United States bonds aggregating in value about $5,000; telling him to go and get possession of said premises, and further advising him as to an offer to be made to Henry C. Lewis. William I. Lewis went to Westbrook, and upon the premises, and, by the authority of said power of attorney, began negotiations with Henry C. Lewis. Henry C. Lewis proposed to relinquish possession of the property for the sum of $8,000 to be paid him. William I. Lewis offered to give $2,

000. It was thereupon agreed to leave to one Stannard the determination of the question of what sum should be paid Henry C. Lewis. Stannard having decided that the sum of $4,000 should be paid him, a release deed dated July 10, 1871, was then executed by Henry C. Lewis to William I. Lewis, and left by the former with Stannard for delivery by him to William I. Lewis when the consideration should be paid. The bonds of John Lewis, which had been brought from Washington by William I. Lewis, were on said July 10, 1871, left by him at a bank in Clinton for sale through a broker in New York. The proceeds of such sale were deposited in said bank in the name of William I. Lewis, and drawn upon by him in payment of Henry C. Lewis; checks therefor signed by him being left with Stannard for use when Henry C. Lewis should leave the premises. Henry C. Lewis thereafter relinquished possession of the premises. The money was paid him, the deed delivered to William I. Lewis in accordance with the understanding, and on July 28, 1871, the same was left for record in the office of the town clerk. Upon leaving the premises, Henry C. Lewis took with him the plaintiff. On or about May 1, 1872, William I. Lewis and Isadora I. Lewis, his wife, removed from Washington and occupied said premises, and have since remained in occupation thereof, excepting such portions as have been conveyed to the other parties. William I. Lewis in 1878 conveyed said premises, through a third party, to his wife, Isadora. The defendants Winship, Hall, and Yale claim to own portions of the premises under deeds from William I. Lewis and wife. Henry C. Lewis died April 13, 1898. John Lewis left a will devising all his real estate in Middlesex county, in this state, to William I. Lewis. Subsequent to July 10, 1871, Henry C. Lewis did not at any time during his lifetime possess any portion of said premises; neither has the plaintiff since the death of Henry C. Lewis; but the defendant William I. Lewis and the grantees under him have at all times been in possession. When William I. Lewis accepted the deed of July 10, 1871, he intended to, and did in fact, waive and abandon all right to claim possession of said premises on account of nonperformance of any of the conditions set forth in Exhibit A, both for himself and for John Lewis, so far as John Lewis had any interest, or Willam I. Lewis had any right to represent John Lewis.

Upon the court's determination that the plaintiff was entitled to possession, the several defendants made claims, under the provisions of section 4052 of the General Statutes of 1902, for payment to them by the plaintiff of the value of the improvements made by them upon the several portions of the original premises then owned by them, respectively, which improvements were claimed to have been made in good faith, and in the belief that their respective titles to the land upon which they were made was absolute. The court, having first determined that improvements had been made upon the premises, and made as claimed, thereupon estimated the present value of an estate for the plaintiff's life therein, based upon his expectation of life according to approved expectancy tables, and also the amount due the plaintiff from the several defendants for use and occupation. The plaintiff, pending these proceedings, filed his election to have the title confirmed in the several defendants; and the court also ascertained and determined the amounts which ought, in equity, to be paid the plaintiff by each occupant to entitle him to such confirmation. In this determination the court took into account the fact that the estate of the plaintiff was only a life estate, and ruled with respect to both this inquiry, and that as to the amount due for use and occupation, that the conditions attached thereto, to wit, that he was required to occupy the premises himself during his life, barred him from a more profitable use of them than for farming purposes. In arriving at the amounts which ought to be so paid by the several defendants, the court added to the sums found due for past use and occupation, upon the basis adopted as aforesaid, such further sums, and such only, as would during the plaintiff's expectation of life yield him an annual income from the several portions of the premises equivalent to the annual rental values ascertained as aforesaid. As the result of these computations, it was found that there ought equitably to be paid to the plaintiff, as a condition of the confirmation of the defendants' respective titles, the following sums: Prom Lewis and wife, $2,500; from Hall and Yale, $200; and from Winship, $200. The...