Ruckelshaus v. Borcherling

• Decision Date: 12 June 1896
• Citation: 54 N.J.E. 344,34 A. 977
• Parties: RUCKELSHAUS v. BORCHERLING.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

34 A. 977

54 N.J.E. 344

RUCKELSHAUS

v. BORCHERLING.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

June 12, 1896.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Action by John Ruckelshaus against Charles Rorcherling to restrain the collection of a part of a judgment recovered. Decree for complainant.

Joseph Coult, for complainant.

Chauncey G. Parker and Cortlandt Parker, for defendant.

REED, V. C. The facts set up in the bill will be found stated in detail in the opinions delivered in this court and in the court of errors and appeals when this cause was before those courts on demurrer to the bill. 48 N. J. Eq. 436, 22 Atl. 184; 49 N. J. Eq. 340, 24 Atl. 547.

The following statement is deemed sufficient for the present purposes: Ruckelshaus, the complainant, was a tenant of Hugh H. McCulloch under a five-years lease, which would expire on April 1, 1885. McCulloch died on May 3, 1883. The rented premises had been the property of Mcculloch's deceased wife. McCulloch's estate at the time of the renting was that of tenant by the curtesy. At his death the heir at law of his deceased wife was her sister, Mrs. Mary J. Oehme. There was in fact upon record at the time of McCulloch's decease a deed purporting to be made by Mrs. Oehme, conveying the rented property to McCulloch in his lifetime. Upon McCulloch's death, Ruckelshaus was concerned to know to whom he should thereafter pay his rent. In the absence of any conveyance by the heiress, Mrs. Oehme, to McCulloch, the rent would be naturally paid to the former. Ruckelshaus, upon inquiry, however, was informed of the fact that Mrs. Oehme had during McCulloch's life made the deed mentioned. Ruckelshaus thereafter, for about 16 months, paid the rent to the agent of the heirs of McCulloch, who distributed it to numerous heirs living in different parts of the United States. On July 20, 1884, Mrs. Oehme, claiming that the deed which purported to have been made by her, conveying the property to McCulloch, was obtained by fraud, and that Ruckelshaus' term had expired with the death of McCulloch, began an action of ejectment against Ruckelshaus. In this action she succeeded. Following the judgment in that case, she brought an action for mesne profits, and recovered the value of the premises from the period of McCulloch's death down to October 1, 1885, when Ruckelshaus began the payment of the rent to her. This bill is filed to restrain the collection of a part of the judgment recovered for mesne profits. It is that portion of the judgment which includes the value of the premises from the death of McCulloch to the time of bringing the action of ejectment. The ground upon which the court is asked to restrain the collection of this portion of the judgment is that Ruckelshaus was led to believe, either by the words of Mrs. Oehme communicated to him or by her silence, when it was her duty to enlighten him, that the deed purporting to have been made by her to McCulloch was bona fide, and so he was led to pay his rent to the heirs of McCulloch. The estoppel thus raised against the representation of Mrs. Oehme is rested upon two grounds. The first is that Mrs. Oehme admitted that she made the deed purporting to be executed by her to McCulloch; that she knew at the time of these admissions that her words would be communicated to Ruckelshaus, and that he would be likely to shape his conduct by their import. The second ground is that, when she should have known that Ruckelshaus was likely to pay his rent to the agent of the heirs of McCulloch, in the belief that McCulloch died seised in fee of this property, she did not apprise him that she claimed to be still the owner of the property.

The facts upon which the first insistence is rested are these: It appears that when McCulloch died, one William McCulloch, a nephew of his, was at his uncle's house. After his uncle's death, William assisted in looking after his affairs. Among the papers of McCulloch he found two deeds; one purporting to convey some harbor lots to McCulloch, and another purporting to convey to McCulloch the rented premises in question. These deeds purported to be executed by Mary J. Oehme. William McCulloch seems to have asked a Mr. John H. Kase to administer upon the estate of McCulloch, deceased. Mr. Kase excused himself from undertaking the office on the plea of the pressure of his own business. Upon his declination, Charles M. Kase, the son of John H. Kase, was selected, the father having promised that he would render him what assistance he could in the practical administration of the estate. Charles M. Kase having qualified as administrator, McCulloch delivered to him the two deeds mentioned. Kase was not only the administrator of McCulloch, but he was appointed the agent of the heirs of McCulloch. Mr. Kase says that he had an interview with Mrs. Oehme upon an occasion when he was examining the papers of the deceased. In that interview he says she told him that she had conveyed to McCulloch a part of the harbor lots. He does not say, however, that she mentioned the deed to the Market street property. The principal witness for the complainant as to the admissions of Mrs. Oehme is the father of the administrator, Mr. John H. Kase, who was interested in the administration of the estate in the manner already mentioned. His testimony is that he went to the house of the deceased, where Mrs. Oehme had lived with McCulloch (and where she still lives), to make an inventory, and had several talks with her. He says that in one of these, which occurred one or two weeks after the letters of administration were taken out, these deeds were mentioned. He says that she told him that she had given a deed for the Market street property, but not a deed for all the harbor lots. He says he told her that his son had a power of attorney from the heirs of McCulloch to collect the rent of the Market street property, and that he wished to inform Ruckelshaus of all the facts, so that he would have no hesitation in paying the rent. He further says that he communicat ed these facts to Ruckelshaus, and on one occasion showed him the deed. He did this in response to an inquiry from Ruckelshaus whether it was proper for him to pay over the rent to the agent of the heirs of McCulloch. Mr. Kase also expressly states that he never knew that Mrs. Oehme made a claim to the Market street property until the action of ejectment was brought by Mrs. Oehme to eject Ruckelshaus on July 20, 1884. The testimony of Ruckelshaus is to the effect that after the death of McCulloch he had hesitated about paying his rent until assured that the heirs of McCulloch had the right to receive it He supports the testimony of Mr. Kase that a deed was shown him, and that Mr. Kase repeated to him the conversation which he says he had with Mrs. Oehme. This is the substance of the testimony for the complainant upon this point. The principal witness for the defense is John Eastwood. His testimony goes to directly contradict the testimony of Kase that he never knew that Mrs. Oehme made any claim to the Market street property until July 20, 1884. Eastwood says that in the beginning of the summer of 1883 he heard a conversation between Mr. Kase and Mrs. Oehme, in which conversation Mrs. Oehme repudiated the suggestion of Kase that she had parted with her interest in the Market street property. His statement is this: He was passing the Second National Bank on his way to the railway station to take a train for New York City. Mr. John H. Kase and Mrs. Oehme, he thinks, were standing near the bank door, and, as he passed, Mrs. Oehme called to him. He said to her that he could not stop, because he was on his way to the train. He says that Mr. Kase and Mrs. Oehme were talking quite excitedly, and, as he gathered, about some rents which Mr. McCulloch had collected....