Sawyer v. Clark

• Decision Date: 27 February 1913
• Parties: SAWYER v. CLARK et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

214 Mass. 124

100 N.E. 1079

SAWYER v. CLARK et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

February 27, 1913

COUNSEL

A. K. Cohen and H. A. Mintz, both of Boston, for appellant.

Daniel B. Ruggles, of Boston, for appellees.

OPINION

HAMMOND J.

This is a bill in equtiy in which the plaintiff, as executor of the will of his father, George A. Sawyer, seeks to recover from the defendant Clark, hereinafter called the defendant certain personal property transferred to her by the testator in his lifetime. The case was tried in the superior court and it is before us upon an appeal by the plaintiff from a final decree in favor of the defendants.

At the trial it appeared that in May, 1908, the deceased transferred to the defendant personal property approximating in value the sum of $110,000; and the questions raised by the pleadings and tried were in substance, first, whether at the time of the transfer the deceased was of sound mind, and, second whether he was induced thereto by the undue influence of the defendant.

The judge ordered the bill to be dismissed with costs. At the time he sent down this order, viz., March 29, 1912, he filed a memorandum as follows:

'A very full and careful consideration of the testimony leads me to the conclusion and I therefore find as facts, that George A. Sawyer, considering his age, was at the time of giving and transferring the property in controversy to his daughter-in-law, of full and sound mental capacity, that in doing as he did do he considered the natural claims of his son [the plaintiff in this case] upon his bounty and having such in mind he voluntarily chose because of his love and affection for her to give to her a greater share of his estate than he had given or was to give to his son.

'The suggestion of improper relations existing between Mr. Sawyer and the daughter-in-law finds no support in any trustworthy testimony and I find not that this allegation is not proven but that it is not true.

'The evidence clearly establishes that Mrs. Clark was toward Mr. Sawyer a loving and dutiful daughter and that his conduct toward her was what might reasonably have been expected from a father who appreciated the love and care of a child and was determined to properly reward it.

'Finally, I find that Mrs. Clark in no respect used or exercised any improper or controlling influence or in any manner coerced him to follow a line of conduct which was not laid out by the exercise of his own free will.'

Subsequently, but before the formal entry of the final decree, at the request of the plaintiff the judge made certain subsidiary and additional findings, concluding with the following statement: 'In finding the foregoing facts I do not intend to change in any respect the memorandum filed March 29, 1912, but hereby reaffirm the same.'

All the evidence is before us. No disputed...