Sappingfield v. Sappingfield

• Decision Date: 07 October 1913
• Citation: 67 Or. 156,135 P. 333
• Parties: SAPPINGFIELD et al. v. SAPPINGFIELD et ux.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

135 P. 333

67 Or. 156

SAPPINGFIELD et al. v. SAPPINGFIELD et ux.

Supreme Court of Oregon

October 7, 1913

Department 1.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; Wm. Galloway, Judge.

Suit by H.A. Sappingfield and others against Charles Sappingfield and wife. From a decree for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Reversed, and suit dismissed.

This is a suit by all the living descendants of Mary Sappingfield now deceased, with the exception of her son, the defendant Charles Sappingfield, to set aside a conveyance to the latter of the south one-half of her donation land claim, made by the decedent during her lifetime.

In substance the complaint recites that the decedent had made a contract with her husband, John Sappingfield, whereby she executed a deed to him for the land in question here, and he made a will in her favor, bequeathing his property to her during her life, with the remainder to their children equally, after taking into account sundry advancements to some of them. It is averred that John Sappingfield died March 8, 1903, and that his will was admitted to probate; that afterwards the defendant induced the decedent, his mother, to commence suit against all her children and their legal representatives to quiet her title to the premises here involved; and that afterwards, upon issue joined, the court decreed that the title to the property was vested solely in the decedent, Mary Sappingfield. The complaint otherwise alleges that Mary Sappingfield was illiterate and feeble, her eyesight and hearing greatly impaired; that she was easily persuaded in her course of conduct; that the defendant and his wife at all the times mentioned therein lived with his mother; that she fully trusted to him the conduct of all her business; and that she depended entirely upon him for guidance in all matters of a business nature. It is also alleged: "That on or about the 5th day of November 1905, defendant, in pursuance of his plan to secure all of said premises to himself, and taking advantage of the mental and physical condition of the said Mary Sappingfield, and of her illiteracy and the confidence that she reposed in him as son and agent, and of the effect upon her mind of said suit with her said children, procured from the said Mary Sappingfield her signature to a certain instrument of writing purporting to be a warranty deed conveying to him for the pretended consideration of one thousand ($1,000) dollars and love and affection all of the above-described premises in fee, but in truth and in fact no money whatever was paid to the grantor as a consideration for said conveyance."

Asserting that Mary Sappingfield died intestate in Marion county, Or about September 4, 1911, leaving as her heirs at law and her only heirs her said living children and their heirs by right of representation, as set forth in the complaint, plaintiffs pray for a decree declaring the conveyance void and for its cancellation. The answer traverses every allegation of the complaint, except as otherwise admitted. It concedes the relationship of the parties, the suit by Mary Sappingfield to quiet her title to the land in dispute, and its result in her favor, and the execution and delivery of the deed from his mother to the defendant Charles, excepting that the same reserves to her a life estate during her life. Her death is admitted; but the date is placed at August 26, 1911.

Concerning the conveyance sought to be avoided, the defendant alleges in substance that, prior to the commencement of the suit to quiet her title, the mother voluntarily proposed to her son Charles that, if he would pay the expenses of the suit and attorney's fees of $1,200, which she agreed upon with her counsel, aggregating an estimated total of $1,400, she would convey to him, subject to her life estate therein, the premises in question, to which proposal he assented afterwards paid the amount agreed upon, took and recorded the deed, has ever since been the owner of and entitled to the possession of the property, subject to the life estate of his mother, until her death, and since then the absolute owner in fee. The reply denied the allegations of the answer in material particulars. From a decree for the plaintiffs, the defendants appeal.

C.M. Inman and F.A. Turner, of Salem, for appellants.

L.H. McMahan, of Salem, for respondents.

BURNETT J.

(after stating the facts as above).

Although the complaint states that the plaintiffs are lineal descendants of Mary Sappingfield, deceased, and that she died intestate, we are left to infer that the resulting estate inherited from her continued until the time of the commencement of this suit. Passing that however, the allegation that she died intestate is denied by the answer. No proof was offered by the plaintiff on this issue. On the contrary, the defendant offered in evidence, without objection on the part of plaintiffs, a certified copy of the proceedings of the county court of Marion county, in the matter of the probate of the will of Mary Sappingfield, deceased, dated March 28, 1906. The petition for that purpose alleges that Mary Sappingfield died on August 26, 1911, in Marion county, state of Oregon, and was at the...