Linneman v. Moross' Estate

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: LONG, J.
• Citation: Linneman v. Moross' Estate, 98 Mich. 178, 57 N.W. 103 (Mich. 1893)
• Decision Date: 22 December 1893
• Parties: LINNEMAN v. MOROSS' ESTATE.

57 N.W. 103

98 Mich. 178

LINNEMAN v. MOROSS' ESTATE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

December 22, 1893

Error to circuit court, Wayne county; Henry N. Brevoort, Judge.

Proceeding by Nancy Ann Linneman to enforce a claim against the estate of Joseph A. Moross, deceased. There was a judgment for claimant, and the estate brings error. Reversed.

Wells Angell, Boynton & McMillan, for appellant.

Edwin C. Bolton, E. T. Wood, and Moore & Moore, for appellee.

LONG J.

This claim is for the payment of $10 per month from October 15 1874, to April 16, 1890. It involves a contingent claim for a like amount, monthly, so long as claimant lives. The commissioners on claims rejected it. Claimant appealed to the circuit court, and succeeded. The estate brings error.

The claimant and deceased were brother and sister, children of Antoine Moross. The claim is based upon a contract alleged to have been made in 1871 between Antoine and Joseph for the benefit of the claimant. Some time prior to 1871, Antoine Moross made a will, in which he gave Nancy, for life, 20 acres of land and $200 in money. In April, 1871, he made a codicil to the will, whereby he revoked the gift to Nancy and gave to Joseph what in the original will had been given to Nancy; stating after the revoking clause, "I have since made other provisions for her maintenance during her natural life." Antoine died soon after. In 1875 Joseph conveyed to Nancy the land which had been originally devised to her, and she gave to Joseph on the same day the following receipt: "Mt. Clemens, Feb'y 15, 1875. Received from Joseph A. Moross deed of north half S.E. 1/4 of S.E. 1/4, sec. 26, town 2 west, range 13 east, in Macomb county, in full settlement of all claims between us. Ann Linneman. Witness: O. Chapoton." It was established on the trial that Joseph promised Antoine, when the codicil to the will was made, that he would pay the $10 per month to Nancy so long as she lived. It was also shown that Joseph for a time paid Nancy the $10 per month, which she accepted; also, that in 1874 Nancy sued Joseph on this contract, and recovered judgment. But it is contended in behalf of the estate that the conveyance of the 20 acres of land to Nancy was in full settlement of the claim. It was also contended (1) that no liability attached under the provisions of the codicil, and the promise of Joseph to his father to make the payments to Nancy, as Nancy was a stranger to that contract and to the consideration for the promise; (2) that Nancy was guilty of laches. On the other hand, it was also contended by claimant's counsel, on the trial below, that the claimant did not have sufficient intelligence to comprehend the alleged settlement. The court directed the jury, substantially, that if they found that a contract was entered into between Antoine and Joseph to pay Nancy this sum, and that Nancy, when she made this settlement, was incapable of contracting, by reason of not having sufficient intelligence to understand its terms and conditions, the verdict must be for claimant for the contract price, less the value of the land deeded to her by Joseph. The court was asked by the estate to charge: "This action is based upon a contract made between Joseph A. Moross, deceased, and his father, Antoine Moross, deceased, to which Mrs. Linneman was not a party. Mrs. Linneman, being a stranger to the contract, and to the consideration thereof, can maintain no action upon it." This request was refused, and the jury found a verdict in favor of claimant for $742.33.

The court should have given the request of defendant's counsel in charge to the jury. There is no evidence that Nancy was a party to the contract between Antoine and Joseph. Antoine, by his will, gave Nancy certain property and money. He afterwards, by codicil, revoked the gift to Nancy, and made the same property over to Joseph, upon Joseph's promise to pay Nancy this monthly indemnity. No consideration moved from Nancy, and we think the case falls within the rule that a promise made by one person to another for the benefit of a third-a stranger to the consideration-will not support action by the latter. This rule is settled in this state in Pipp v. Reynolds, 20 Mich. 88; Turner v McCarty, 22 Mich. 265; Hicks v. McGarry, 38 Mich. 667; Hunt v. Strew, 39 Mich. 368; Hidden v. Chappel, 48 Mich. 527, 12 N.W. 687; Edwards v. Clement, 81 Mich. 513, 45 N.W. 1107; Wheeler v. Stewart, 94 Mich. 445, 54 N.W. 172. In the latter case it appeared that plaintiff's husband, in his lifetime, agreed with defendant to buy a...