Niday v. Graef

Decision Date27 March 1922
Docket Number3764.
Citation279 F. 941
PartiesNIDAY et al. v. GRAEF.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Rehearing Denied May 8, 1922.

Alfred A. Fraser, of Boise, Idaho, for appellants and cross-appellees.

Hugh Montgomery and Platt & Platt, Montgomery & Fales, all of Portland, Or., for appellee and cross-appellant.

Before ROSS, MORROW, and HUNT, Circuit Judges.

HUNT Circuit Judge.

This suit was brought by Mrs. Julia Graef to set aside two deeds of land made in 1914 and 1915, respectively, by R. E. Green who died in March, 1917, to J. L. Niday, the husband of Mrs Niday, a sister of Julia Graef. The essence of the complaint is that Mr. Niday obtained the deeds in an improper manner and that Mr. Green, who was the father of Mrs. Niday and Mrs Graef, executed the deeds while under Niday's influence. Defendants Niday and wife admitted the conveyances, but denied all allegations of improper conduct, and alleged that the property had been sold by them to certain other defendants, Buell and wife and A. L. Green. The last-named defendants answered that they were innocent purchasers.

From a decision in favor of Mrs. Graef the defendants have appealed. After a decree by order of the District Court accounting was had, and, as Mrs. Graef excepted to certain allowances, she filed a cross-appeal.

We gather these facts from the evidence: When Mr. Green conveyed the property he was about 80 years old and had previously parted with all his other properties. Mr. Niday was a lawyer at Boise, and for years enjoyed intimate, personal, and professional relations with Mr. Green, and held his entire confidence. Mr. Green lived on the ranch Greenhurst from 1900 until 1914. Mrs. Green died in 1909, and soon thereafter Mr. Green commenced to fail in health and mental strength. In 1914, hoping Mr. Green's health would be improved, Mr. and Mrs. Niday moved him to Boise, where, in order to give him proper care, his sister-in-law, Mrs. Wager, went to live with him. Witnesses said that Mr. Green had greatly changed in the later years of his life, that he was nervous and depressed, and was unable to collect his faculties and did not finish sentences, that at times he failed to recognize members of his family, and would often sit listlessly and seemed greatly worried over his financial condition. One of his daughters testified that he grieved over his inability to support her, and expressed himself as poverty-stricken, 'living upon the bounty of Mr. and Mrs. Niday.'

The first deed to Mr. Niday was for six acres. It was executed December 22, 1914, but was not recorded until February 19, 1916. The other deed was for 206 acres, dated October 1, 1915, but was not filed for record until May 27, 1916. Mr. Niday testified that in 1914 there were mortgages on the ranch, and that the notes bore accumulated interest; that Mr. Green consulted him, and that adjustments were made by which Mr. Green parted with title to certain other lands, but retained the property known as the Greenhurst ranch, here involved, which was also mortgaged; that at one time Mr. Green brought up the matter of the payment of the mortgages and said that he (Niday) had been attending to business for him and his family for years and had never been paid, and that he would like him to have the ranch; that with some reluctance he accepted the deed subject to the mortgages against the land; that afterwards he paid the mortgages, amounting to more than $12,000; and that $15,000 was the reasonable value of the ranch in 1915. Referring to the deed of the six-acre tract, Mr. Niday said that after the incumbrance upon it was dismissed Mr. Green told him that he would like him to take it, saying, 'You can put up money for my use; ' that he accepted the deed; that the value of the professional services which he had rendered to Mr. Green during the years between 1896 and up to the time of the disposition of the property was from $3,000 to $4,000; that he had never presented a bill or made up an itemized statement; and that Mr. Green proposed to convey the property in payment of the debt. Mr. Niday said that he withheld the deeds from record because he wished to obtain a loan from the state land board of Idaho; but that, inasmuch as he had borrowed $5,000 from that board, and as no one person could borrow more than that amount from the board, he withheld the deed and asked his father-in-law, Mr. Green, to apply to the state authorities for a loan of $5,000, but that loan was denied.

The whole record shows that Mr. Niday had great influence over Mr. Green. For instance, it is significant that in 1914 Mr Green wrote an 'abusive' letter to Mr. Moore, an old friend, and thereafter called upon the friend and apologized for having written it, saying Mr. Niday had made him sign it. It is a circumstance, too, that about 10 days before the death of Mr. Green, which occurred in March, 1917, Mr. Niday endeavored to arouse him in order to sign a paper. These matters become damaging to the attitude of Mr. Niday when it is recalled that not until after Mr. Green's death did he inform Mrs. Graef and Mrs. Acuff, another daughter, and one of Mr. Green's sons, that their father had conveyed all his property to him. Mrs. Niday doubtless knew of the transaction, as did two sons, Jack and James, who, after the father's death, conveyed their interests in the property involved to Mr. Niday. Mrs. Graef, however, did not know of the existence of the deeds...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Cobell v. Norton
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • December 19, 2005
    ...oppressive conduct by a powerful labor organization which was required, as bargaining agent, to protect their interests."); Niday v. Graef, 279 F. 941 (9th Cir.1922) (attorney's fees awarded against family lawyer from his elderly client due to breach of fiduciary relationship). Second, the ......
  • Gold Dust Corporation v. Hoffenberg
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • January 4, 1937
    ...15 Wall. 211, 21 L.Ed. 43; Marks v. Leo Feist, Inc., 8 F. (2d) 460 (C.C.A.2); McIntosh v. Ward, 159 F. 66 (C.C.A.7). Compare Niday v. Graef, 279 F. 941 (C.C.A.9). Where no federal statute is applicable, the federal courts resort to the statutes and the practice of the state. Ex parte Peters......
  • United States v. Mashunkashey
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • September 13, 1934
    ...appeal to a court of equity to grant relief by way of compensation for her services. Blank v. Aronson (C. C. A.) 187 F. 241; Niday v. Graef (C. C. A.) 279 F. 941; Adriaans v. Dill, 37 App. D. C. 59; Walsh v. Stock Yards Trust & Savings Bank, 340 Ill. 57, 172 N. E. The last question involved......
  • U.S. v. Standard Oil Co. of California
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • August 27, 1979
    ...of fair representation, forced black members to litigate to defend themselves from union's blatant racial discrimination); Niday v. Graef (9th Cir. 1922) 279 F. 941 (attorney's fees awarded against family lawyer in suit to recover property obtained by lawyer from his elderly client in breac......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT