Page v. Afflerbach
| Decision Date | 08 March 1928 |
| Citation | 140 A. 792 |
| Parties | PAGE et al. v. AFFLERBACH. |
| Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Bill by Carrie Dehn Page and another against Ida Afflerbach for partition. Crossbill by defendant, praying it be decreed that complainants have no estate in the land. Bill dismissed, and defendant granted relief prayed for.
Endicott & Endicott, of Atlantic City, for complainants.
Babcock & Champion, of Atlantic City, for defendant.
INGERGOLL, Vice Chancellor. The defendant, a spinster now upward of 57 years of age, was the only daughter of Henry Afflerbach and his wife, who resided for many years in Atlantic City. He was in the stationery business. After the wife's death, which occurred in 1900, he purchased a property known as No. 14 South California avenue, and caused the title to be placed in the defendant.
Shortly after the purchase of this property he and his daughter moved into it, where he remained until his death. Complainant, then a single woman, also lived with the father and daughter in the property in question. She received wages at the rate of $8 per week. About a month before the death of Mr. Afflerbach, Mr. Dehn (father of complainant), his wife, and five children came to the house, and he assisted in the nursing and care of the father. (This was done as a friendly act, and not for hire.) The families had been on friendly relations, and the defendant testified she looked to him (Dehn) like a father.
By Afflerbach's will, a trust was created in favor of the defendant for her life. He also provided that, should the complainant be living at the death of his daughter, and she should have resided and made her home with the daughter at the time of her decease, she should receive $5,000. In the event that Carrie Dehn should be married, or not be residing or making her home with his daughter, at the time of her death, the said $5,000 should become part of the residuary estate.
After the death of Afflerbach, the Dehn family remained at the home of Miss Afflerbach, and about three weeks thereafter Dehn suggested that "it would be nice if I would will it to his daughter, that she gets it after my death," and it was decided that Mr. Dehn should arrange with Mr. Robert E. Stephany, then a practicing attorney of this state, and who has since died, to attend to the business. In pursuance of such arrangements and understanding that she was to have a will drawn, Miss Afflerbach called at the office of Mr. Stephany and "signed a paper."
Miss Afflerbach insists that she understood she was "signing a will that Carrie Page gets the property after my death." In fact, she signed a deed to Albert C. Stephany (a brother of Robert E., the scrivener), and he in turn conveyed the premises to the defendant and complainant as joint tenants, and not as tenants in common. Some time later the defendant received the deeds...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hanstein v. Kelly
...Am.St.Rep. 790, 1 Ann.Cas. 49; Nicklas v. Parker, supra; Connors v. Murphy, 100 N.J.Eq. 280, 134 A. 681, 53 A.L.R. 1115; Page v. Afflerbach, 102 N.J.Eq. 390, 140 A. 792, affirmed 104 N.J.Eq. 489, 146 A. 916; Reeves v. Reeves, 102 N.J.Eq. 436, 141 A. 175; Kirkpatrick v. Kirkpatrick, 106 N.J.......
-
Fruzynski v. Radler
...any knowledge or information as to the import of the document and without any agreement or intention to make a gift. Cf. Page v. Afflerbach, 102 N.J.Eq. 390, 140 A. 792. (Ch. 1928), affirmed 104 N.J.Eq. 489, 146 A. 916 (E. & A. The fact that an acknowledgement appears on the deed, while a f......
-
First Nat. Bank of Lyndhurst v. Rutherford Trust Co.
...83 N. J. Eq. 335, 91 A. 1071; Mullen v. Mullen, 98 N. J. Eq. 728, 130 A. 628, affirmed 98 N. J. Eq. 727, 130 A. 632; Page v. Afflerbach, 102 N. J. Eq. 390, 140 A. 792, affirmed Reeves v. Reeves, 102 N. J. Eq. 436, 141 A. 175; Kirkpatriek v. Kirkpatrick, 106 N. J. Eq. 391, 151 A. Tbe burden ......
-
Pabst v. Haman
...affirmed 83 N.J.Eq. 335, 91 A. 1071; Mullen v. Mullen, 98 N.J.Eq. 728, 130 A. 628, affirmed 98 N.J.Eq. 727, 130 A. 632; Page v. Affiorbach, 102 N.J. Eq. 390, 140 A. 792, affirmed Reeves v. Reeves, 102 N.J.Eq. 436, 141 A. 175; Kirkpatrick v. Kirkpatrick, 106 N.J.Eq. 391, 151 A. 48; First Nat......