Marble v. Marble's Estate
| Decision Date | 21 October 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 14632.,14632. |
| Citation | 304 Ill. 229,136 N.E. 589 |
| Parties | MARBLE v. MARBLE'S ESTATE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Claim by Mayme E. Marble against the estate of Mattie M. Marble, deceased. A judgment for defendant was affirmed by the Appellate Court, and complainant appeals on certificate of importance.
Affirmed.Appeal from Appellate Court, Third District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, McLean County; Edward Barry, Judge.
Herrick & Herrick, of Farmer City, and Oglevee & Franklin, of Bloomington, for appellant.
Hall, Martin, Hoose & DePew and Fifer & Bohrer, all of Bloomington, for appellee.
The Appellate Court affirmed a judgment of the circuit court of McLean county in favor of the defendant on a claim against the estate of Mattie M. Marble, and granted the appellant, Mayme E. Marble, a certificate of importance and a further appeal to this court.
The following document was the foundation of the claim:
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦‘Mrs. M. A. Marble and Mattie M. Marble, in Account with Walter E. Marble and¦
¦Mayme E. Marble: ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------¦
¦ ¦To cash (from Mayme E. Marble) used in purchase of the Graff ¦ ¦
¦1879. ¦grocery buildings, Las Vegas, New Mexico, title taken in name ¦$ 800 ¦
¦ ¦of M. A. Marble ¦ ¦
+------+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦1887. ¦Cash used in purchase of house in Kingston, New Mexico, deed ¦400 ¦
¦ ¦in name of Mattie M. Marble ¦ ¦
+------+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦1889 ¦Mining work on the Little Jimmy, the Little Annie, and other ¦ ¦
¦to ¦mining properties in Sierra county, New Mexico, for shares ¦2,000 ¦
¦1892. ¦owned by Mrs. M. A. Marble ¦ ¦
+------+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦Cash paid for Stone post office building, purchased for $1,400¦ ¦
¦1890. ¦and owned by Mayme E. Marble one year, also additions to same ¦2,450 ¦
¦ ¦by W.E. Marble, $1,050, title given to Mattie Marble ¦ ¦
+------+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦1891. ¦Tunnel and exploration work on the Chicago mining property, ¦1,500 ¦
¦ ¦Sierra county, New Mexico, for shares of Mrs. M. A. Marble ¦ ¦
+------+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦400 shares ($25) entire stock of 32 miles telephone line, ¦ ¦
¦1891. ¦Sierra county, New Mexico, built and owned by W. E. Marble, ¦10,000 ¦
¦ ¦turned over to Mattie M. Marble in trust ¦ ¦
+------+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦1891. ¦One-third of Delia Guyles' legacy, left to W. E. Marble in ¦10,000 ¦
¦ ¦trust with Mattie M. Marble, compromise for ¦ ¦
+------+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦$27,150¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
‘St. Joseph, Mich., Thursday, Sept. 15, 1892.
‘I acknowledge the above statement and claim of accounts and now enter them at full stated value into the family estate, with the mutual understanding that said estate is to be held in clear title by me, and to be managed by me during my life as trustee, the estate to finally pass to the natural heirs of our mother, Mrs. M. A. Marble, failing which the above claim is to be paid from the estate, with interest at legal rate.
‘I hereby agree to begin the education now, in boarding school, of two of the grandchildren, paying all expenses from family estate, and also to allow my brother Walter at least $15 per week from this date.
Mattie M. Marble.
‘Witness:
‘M. A. Marble, Kingston, New Mexico, Nov. 1, 1892.
‘We accept this settlement and agreement.
‘W. E. Marble,
‘Mayme E. Marble.’
The cause was heard by the court without a jury. The only contested question of fact was the genuineness of the signature of Mattie M. Marble. The testimony of 25 or 30 witnesses was introduced on this question, and so far as numbers were concerned they were about equally divided. There were several witnesses who testified as experts, and the testimony of a majority of them was favorable to the defense. Many signatures of the decedent on checks, drafts, letters, and other documents were introduced in evidence as standards for comparison, the originals of which have been certified to this court. They were submitted to and used by the expert witnesses, who were subject, as were the other witnesses, to cross-examination. It was shown that Mattie M. Marble placed one of Walter's sons in a school in the fall of 1892, and paid his board and tuition for one year, and a letter written by her to the appellant in August, 1895, during the last illness of Walter, in which weekly drafts of $10 sent by her to the appellant were mentioned, was introduced in evidence. It is asserted on one said, and denied on the other, that these circumstances tend to establish the genuineness of the writing by showing Miss Marble's recognition of its obligation. The testimony is flatly contradictory, not as to any fact which is the subject of direct testimony, but as to the ultimate question whether the signature is Miss Marble's. There was no direct testimony that she made the signature. It was the province of the judge who heard the case, from the circumstances in evidence, a comparison of the writings and the opinions of the witnesses, giving to the opinion of each, whether expert or nonexpert, such weight as his opportunity and capacity for observation and judgment, his skill and experience, and the reasons for his opinion justified, to determine whether the signature was or was not Miss Marble's.
The condition of the record is such that an appellate court would not be justified in setting aside the finding of the trial court on the ground that it is contrary to the evidence. To do so the appellate court must find that the finding is manifestly against the weight of the evidence, after taking into considerationthe better opportunity of the trial court to determine the question by reason of its opportunity to see and hear the witnesses. There was ample evidence to sustain a finding either way when only the evidence on one said is considered, and when all the evidence is considered it is too evenly balanced to enable the court to say that a finding either way is manifestly against its weight. The Appellate Court, in an opinion which rested entirely on a consideration of the evidence, determined that the signature was not the genuine signature of Miss Marble, agreeing with the judgment of the trial court.
It is said in the appellant's brief that the circuit court did not find any forgery of the signature. That court found the issues for the defendant, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that it found the instrument in question was executed by Miss Marble. If we were authorized to pass upon and weight the evidence, we could not reverse the judgment on the ground that the evidence did not sustain it. However, even a finding that the document bore the genuine signature of Miss Marble would have afforded no basis for a judgment against her estate. The theory of the appellant is that the instrument in question is evidence of the creation of a trust in Miss Marble in favor of Walter E. Marble and Mayme E. Marble, the subject-matter of which was the indebtedness mentioned in the instrument; that Miss Marble was to hold a sum of money mentioned as due Walter and Mayme as part of the family estate in trust during her life; that she was to manage it during her life, and at her death it was to go to the natural heirs of Martha A. Marble, the mother of Mattie and Walter, and, if it did not do so, then the claim was to be paid from the estate, with interest at the legal rate. The instrument acknowledges the statement of account of transactions occurring at various times during a period of 15 years prior to its date, which might be regarded as an account stated and admission of indebtedness; but, if it is to be regarded only as such, it would be unavailing to the appellant, for as an account stated the claim is long since barred by the statute of limitations. There is no promise of Miss Marble to pay at any time, but her only obligation is with reference to the ‘family estate.’ The appellant has therefore argued that the record shows the existence of a trust, and this proposition is essential to her success.
It appears from the record that Dr. John Marble, a resident of Bloomington and the father of Mattie M. Marble and Walter E. Marble, died in 1864, leaving a small estate, consisting of a secondhand store in the city of Bloomington and little else, and debts amounting to almost the value of the estate. He left a will, which was probated; but his estate was never administered upon. The will gave all his property to his wife, and she, together with Mattie, took possession of and managed the store. Besides Mattie, Dr. Marble left another daughter, Delia, and three sons, John, William, and Walter. Delia married William Guyles and died in 1891, leaving her entire estate to her sister by her will, which was admitted to probate in Berrien county, Mich. Mattie was sued in the circuit court of Berrien county, as executrix of Delia's will, by the latter's mother-in-law, to recover for her son his interest in Delia's estate, and as a result of the suit Mattie paid to Guyles' mother $5,000 and gave bond to care for Guyles, who was insane, until his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shaw v. Hamilton
... ... reliance upon that alleged contract, and made that will, as ... to her residuary estate, with a view to the performance of ... the alleged contract. The rule is universal. Miller v ... 450; Brett v. Donaghe, 101 ... Va. 786; Race v. Oldridge, 90 Ill. 250; Marble ... v. Marble, 304 Ill. 229; Warner v. Rice, 66 Md ... 436; Tolson v. Tolson, 10 Gill & ... ...
-
Eychaner v. Gross
... ... In re Estate of Zukerman, 218 Ill.App.3d 325, 330, 161 Ill.Dec. 121, 578 N.E.2d 248 (1991) (and cases cited ... See, e.g., Tucker v. Countryman, 414 Ill. 215, 221, 111 N.E.2d 101 (1953) ; Marble v. Estate of Marble, 304 Ill. 229, 235, 136 N.E. 589 (1922) ... A. Trust ... ...
-
Reighley v. Cont'l Illinois Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago
...make up any deficiency in the amount required to be paid. It had all of the valid requisites of an executed trust. In Marble v. Marble's Estate, 304 Ill. 229, 136 N.E. 589, we held that to constitute a valid trust there must be included four things: (1) the subject matter or property embrac......
-
Estate of Wilkening
... ... 690, 398 N.E.2d 365.) If any of the necessary elements of a trust are not described with certainty, no trust is created. (Marble v. Marble (1922), 304 Ill. 229, 235, 136 N.E. 589.) An oral express trust of personal property is valid. However, one seeking to establish an ... ...