Ralston v. Turpin

• Decision Date: 01 January 1885
• Citation: 25 F. 7
• Parties: RALSTON v. TURPIN. [1]
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

25 F. 7

RALSTON v. TURPIN. ^[1]

United States Circuit Court, S.D. Georgia, Western Division.

1885

Lanier & Anderson and W. Dessau, for complainant.

Bacon &amp Rutherford and Hill & Harris, for defendant.

SPEER J.

The complainant, Ida Ralston, a citizen of the state of New York prefers her bill against George B. Turpin, as trustee of his children; against William C., Frank M., George B., and Walter H., the children of said George B. Turpin, the cestuis que trust, all of whom reside within this jurisdiction. The object of the bill is to have canceled certain deeds of gift made to the respondents by James A. Ralston, who was husband of complainant, to recover the premises conveyed by the deeds, and for the rents, etc. The property involved consists of five business houses, with the lots upon which they are situate, on Cherry street, in the city of Macon, known as the Ralston Hall property. The value is between forty and fifty thousand dollars. James A. Ralston, Jr., died on the fourth day of July, 1883. He had inherited from his parents a very valuable estate, consisting largely of city property in Macon. The bill alleges that James A. Ralston, Jr., had not attained his majority at the time he became the owner of this estate, and that at the September term, 1867, of the Court of Ordinary of Bibb county, the respondent, George B. Turpin was appointed his guardian, having been selected as such by Ralston. In the month of March, 1870, the mother of James A Ralston, Jr., Mrs. Aurelia L., who, in the mean time, had married Dr. Nathan Bozeman, made her will, in which she bequeathed to James A. Ralston, Jr., a large estate, and named George B. Turpin as one of the executors. Turpin qualified, and acted in both capacities. The bill charges that Turpin 'ingratiated' himself in the confidence of Mrs. Bozeman, and acquired a large influence over young Ralston, who, it is alleged, had little capacity for the affairs of business. Ralston became 21 years of age in 1869; Turpin very soon thereafter made his final settlement as guardian, i.e., on the third day of May, 1869, and delivered to Ralston his entire estate, and took his receipt therefor. Turpin, who was a real estate agent, in partnership with J. Monroe Ogden, continued to manage the estate of young Ralston, which consisted almost entirely of the business houses in Macon.

James A. Ralston, Jr., was an extravagant, dissipated, and dissolute man, and Turpin, it is charged, acquired undue influence with him owing to their confidential relations, and finally went north, where Ralston was, and induced him to make a deed of gift on the twenty-sixth of August, 1880, and the subsequent deeds in confirmation, which several deeds it is the object of the bill to nullify. One of these deeds is dated August 28, 1880, and the other April, 1881, and conveyed, it is alleged, the more valuable portions of his estate, worth between forty and fifty thousand dollars. Previously to this conveyance, to-wit, in January, 1880, the complainant was married to Ralston, and was, at its date, living with him at Stamford, in the state of Connecticut. She alleges that Turpin came to Stamford, where the first deed was made, and persuaded him to make the deed, and that in consequence of his importunities, Ralston being in declining health and weakened mentally and physically by dissipation, consented to sign the deed which Turpin had prepared and brought with him. The complainant, being herself under the influence of Turpin, and willing to do anything to conciliate and gratify him, as well as indisposed to oppose her husband, consented to unite in the deed and to relinquish her rights in the premises conveyed. The complainant and her husband, Ralston, went with Ogden, the partner of Turpin, who was also in Stamford, to Bridgeport, to find a commissioner of deeds for the state of Georgia, before whom the conveyance could be executed. Finding no such official there, they went thence to New York, where the deed was signed both by Ralston and the complainant herself. A deed to correct a verbal error in the draught of the first deed was also executed in New York, two days thereafter, and in the month of April, in the next year, another deed was forwarded by mail, and was executed by Ralston and complainant, and returned to Georgia. Copies of these deeds are annexed to the bill, and they all convey the same property to Turpin, in trust for his children, the co-respondents, Ralston reserving the incomes during his life.

A good deal is said in the bill about a compromise had subsequently to the execution of these deeds between Ralston, or Turpin acting for him, and Dr. Bozeman, the second husband of his mother, on the one part, and a Mrs. Laura R. Smith, an aunt of Ralston, on the other part, which compromise settled a disputed claim which Mrs. Smith had against the estate of Ralston's father; but, as the court is unable to perceive any relevance in this matter to the issues presented by the bill and answer, other reference to such compromise will be pretermitted. It is true that this settlement placed an incumbrance on the estate of complainant's husband, and that he paid $2,500 to discharge a portion of the lien which attached to the property he had previously conveyed to Turpin, but this cannot relate back and affect the validity of the deeds on the issues presented by the bill.

It is further charged that Ralston, from mental weakness, was incapable of making a deed; that the deeds were obtained by the undue and controlling influence of Turpin; and that they were wholly without consideration; and the bill prays that the deeds may be canceled, and that the respondents be decreed to account for all the rents, issues, and profits from the date of the execution of the deeds to the date of the decree, and for general relief. Discovery is waived.

The answer of the respondent George B. Turpin, as trustee, outlines the defenses to the bill. Turpin admits his intimate friendship, not only with James A. Ralston, Jr., but with his father, James A. Ralston, Sr., and that he was the confidential friend and business manager of the latter to the date of his death in 1865. He was also the intimate friend of Ralston's mother, and was appointed by her the executor of her will in 1873; that he was appointed the guardian of young Ralston, having been designated as such by the latter in 1867, when Ralston was 19 years of age. He finally, as such guardian, settled with Ralston when he became 21 years of age, and was dismissed by the Court of Ordinary on the third day of May, 1869. He admits and emphasizes the charges of complainant's bill as to the warm and cordial relations of friendship and confidence which existed in the breast of young Ralston towards himself, and insists that they were merited by his own conduct, and by his devotion to Ralston's interests. He avers that Ralston, on account of the unusual and disinterested friendship which existed between himself and the respondent, and the valuable and continuous services rendered by respondent to Ralston and to his family, had voluntarily, and without solicitation, early formed the intention to make large and generous provision for the children of respondent; that Ralston, having no immediate relatives whom he desired to make the recipients of his bounty, had uniformly declared his intention that the respondent's children should, at his death, receive a large portion of his estate. He specially sets out the fact that when Mrs. Aurelia L. Bozeman, the mother of Ralston, came to make her will in 1873, she said to respondent that she had intended to provide for him in her will, but that her son 'Jimmie' had informed her that he would provide amply for Turpin in his will, and the fact that in 1874 young Ralston made his will and bequeathed to Turpin, in trust for Mrs. Laura R. Smith, one half of his estate, and to Turpin, for himself and in trust for his children, the other half, which latter half embraced the identical property conveyed by the deeds attacked by the bill; that, in further pursuance of his intention to endow the children of respondent with this property, on the seventeenth of December, 1879, five years thereafter, Ralston made another will in which he conveyed the same property to Turpin's children, omitting from its beneficence, however, one of the daughters of Turpin, who in the mean time had married a Mr. Horne, who was objectionable to Ralston, and devising the remaining half to the complainant, Ida Blanchard, who in a few weeks would become Ida Ralston. The respondent, answering, avers that he was not in any manner consulted by Ralston as to either will, and declares that his daughter, who was not included as a beneficiary of the last will, would never have been omitted had Ralston consulted respondent to ascertain and to act upon his wishes. This child was also omitted in the three deeds subsequently executed by Ralston.

The answer admits that Ralston was a young man of intemperate and dissolute habits, but alleges that when not intoxicated, or when drinking with moderation, that he was entirely competent to properly conduct his business affairs, and to intelligently dispose of his property. Respondent, after his guardianship had terminated, was retained by Ralston to collect rents, make rent contracts, and, in a general way, as the real-estate agent, to manage all of his business, which the respondent, with his partner, undertook and carried on to the day of Ralston's death, charging the usual commission therefor. Respondent avers that from disinterested friendship for Ralston, he used all his influence to restrain Ralston from intemperate habits and low and evil associations, with however, but little success. He avers that Ralston became infatuated with ...