Robinson v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 18 June 1890 |
| Citation | 42 F. 803 |
| Parties | ROBINSON et al. v. TAYLOR. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi |
Mr Bristow and Inge & Birge, for complainants.
Bogle & Young and Jordan Boone, for defendant.
The questions now for decision arise upon complainants' motion for the appointment of a receiver to take charge of preserve, and manage the property and estate described in the bill. The allegations in the bill are that complainants are the only next of kin and heirs at law of Alonzo H. Taylor who died intestate in Alcorn county in this state; that he died seised and possessed of the real and personal estate described in the bill, and that the defendant is unlawfully in possession of the same, and holding it adversely to the claims of complainants, and that defendant is insolvent; that the complainants' interests require the appointment of a receiver to take possession of, hold, and manage said estate during this litigation. The answer of the defendant denies that complainants are the next of kin and heirs at law of said decedent, A. H. Taylor, and entitled to the estate and property described in the bill or that they have any title, claim to, or interest in the same. The answer further states that defendant is the legitimate son, and only next of kin and heir at law, of said A. H. Taylor, and as such is entitled to, and is the owner of, all the estate, real and personal, of which said decedent died seised and possessed, and admits that he died intestate. The answer further avers that the said A. H. Taylor, in his life-time, conveyed all of the real estate, personal property, choses in action, etc., described in the bill, by two deeds filed as exhibits to the answer, and asked to be made parts of it.
A very large number of affidavits and exhibits have been filed as testimony on both sides; and the questions have been argued at great length, and with great ability, by the distinguished counsel on both sides, as if the cause were on final hearing. The answer of the defendant throws the burden upon complainants to produce strong prima facie evidence that they have the title, legal or equitable, to the estate and property described in the bill; otherwise their motion must be denied. The affidavits show that complainants are the daughters of John C. Taylor, who as a brother of said A. H. Taylor, and who died before A. H. Taylor; that said A. H. Taylor left surviving him no father, mother, brother, or sister, or descendant of such, except complainants; and that, in the absence of a child, widow, or descendant of such, the complainants are the next of kin and heirs at law of said A. H. Taylor. The defendant, John W. Taylor, in his answer, avers that he is the lawful and legitimate son of decedent, and as such is entitled to the inheritance of all the estate, real and personal, of which he died seised and possessed. If this is established by the proofs, then complainants have no claim thereto. The burden of showing that defendant is such legitimate son, next of kin, and heir at law of the decedent, is upon defendant,-- not in this proceeding to that degree of certainty that will be required upon final hearing, but so as to rebut the prima facie title of complainants; which brings us to consider the proof which has been presented on both sides, mostly by ex parte affidavits, and which shows the following facts:
Some time about the year 1857 or 1858, decedent resided in the town of Houston, in this state, and was engaged as a broker or money lender. At the same time a young woman by the name of Jane Hoskins was engaged in teaching music in a female academy in the same town. The former was from the state of New York, and the latter from the state of Vermont. Both occupied respectable positions in society, and, as was natural, the parties became intimate as friends, if not as lovers. Some time after their acquaintance commenced, it was public talk that their intimacy had become unlawful, which resulted in her dismissal from her position as music teacher and she thereupon left the town of Houston, and never afterwards returned to that place. The next information shown by the proof of her whereabouts was that, some time before the year 1861,-- the precise time does not appear from the proof,-- said A. H. Taylor and Jane, formerly Hoskins, were boarding together in the city of Yazoo, in this state, representing themselves as husband and wife, and having a daughter, whom they called Lonnie, then some two years old, and whom they represented as their child. Decedent spent a portion of his time with his reputed wife and child, and a portion of his time attending to his business at that place, but saying nothing there about his connection with Jane, formerly Jane Hoskins. The proof shows him to have been very reticent in relations to his family and business relations. The proof further shows that when in Yazoo City the parties passed as husband and wife, without any suspicion that they were otherwise, and that they were so received and considered by the most respectable portion of that community; that some time during the year 1861, decedent, with his reputed wife and child, went to Jacksonville, in the state of Alabama, where they represented themselves as husband and wife, and their child Lonnie as their child, and where they were so received and treated by the respectable portion of the community, with no suspicions to the contrary; that during their stay in Jacksonville the defendant, John W. Taylor, was born, and was recognized by them as their child; that during this time the little girl Lonnie died. Decedent during all this time spent part of his time with his reputed wife and children, and part of his time in Houston, looking after his business at that place. The proof further shows, that some time during the year 1865, decedent went with his wife and defendant, then a small child, to the state of New York, and procured a residence for the time on Bond street, in the city of New York, where they resided a portion of the time, visiting and remaining for some time in the town of Carmel, his former home, and the home of his family, at that time occupied by his sister; that he represented Jane as his wife, and the defendant as his son, and that they were considered as such by his family and friends; that, in the fall of 1866, decedent sent Jane to Europe, to complete her musical education, and especially to train her voice,--her natural talent for vocal music being unusual, and highly appreciated by the decedent; that this was carrying out a purpose which he had expressed some time before that; that defendant was left with the sisters of A. H. Taylor, who took great interest in him, and attended to all his wants; that these sisters-- one of them being a widow without children, and the other a maiden lady-- were very much devoted to him, and that they reared him, and attended to his education, until he was placed by his father in Carmel University, where he remained until he graduated; A. H. Taylor furnishing his said reputed wife with all the funds she needed until her return the last of 1871. A. H. Taylor, after 1866, returned to this state, and looked after his interest in Houston and the surrounding country, making his head-quarters in Houston, until 1869, when he removed to the city of Corinth, where he established the Tishomingo Savings Institution, of which he was the principal stockholder, president, and principal manager. He was at the same time the owner of numerous tracts of land in different counties in this state. About the last of the year 1871, Mrs. Taylor, as she was known, returned to the United States, and came to the city of Corinth, where A. H. Taylor then resided. He stated to a lady friend who had known him in Houston that his wife would soon return. When she came, she brought with her a boy whom she called her son, then some four or five years of age. She was received by A. H. Taylor, and treated as though she were his wife, until some time in the latter part of 1872, when an illicit intercourse was entered into between said Jane and one R. T. Dunn, which being made known to A. H. Taylor, he repudiated her; and from that time forward the relationship which had before that time existed between them ceased, and was never afterwards renewed. In fact, feelings of hostility between them continued; and there is testimony showing that each stated that they were not man and wife, and had not been married. But Jane claimed that decedent was under obligations to pay her money, or to support her; that a settlement and compromise was made between them, by which decedent gave her his obligation to pay her $250 quarterly during her life-time. Afterwards, decedent declined to continue this payment, and suit was brought in the circuit court of Alcorn county against him on his written obligation. This was in the name of Jane Hoskins, alias Jane Taylor. A. H. Taylor pleaded that it was procured from him under a threat that he would be prosecuted for living with her in open and notorious lewdness, and suit for damages for breach of marriage contract. Taylor also pleaded payment, to which no replication was filed; but replication was filed to the first plea, denying the statements made in the plea. The transcript furnished is very imperfect, but from it it appears that the suit was brought 30th May, 1874. The obligation was dated 4th April, 1873. The cause was continued until the January term, 1876, and again to the February term, 1876. There appears in the transcript a contract of agreement, signed in the name of Jane Hoskins, transferring the written contract upon which the suit was brought to her attorneys, Curlee & Stanley and William F. Doud, to secure a fee of $1,000 to Curlee & Stanley, and $1,000 to said Doud. The transcript,...
To continue reading
Request your trial