Shetler v. Stewart

• Decision Date: 10 May 1906
• Parties: FRANK E. SHETLER, Adm'r., etc., Appellant, v. ADDIE STEWART, ET AL., Appellees, and FRANK E. SHETLER, Admr., etc., Appellant, v. SAMANTHA S. C. WEBER, ET AL., Appellees
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

107 N.W. 310

133 Iowa 320

FRANK E. SHETLER, Adm'r., etc., Appellant, v. ADDIE STEWART, ET AL., Appellees, and FRANK E. SHETLER, Admr., etc., Appellant, v. SAMANTHA S. C. WEBER, ET AL., Appellees

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

May 10, 1906

Appeals from Marshall District Court.-- HON. G. W. BURNHAM Judge.

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1907.

ACTIONS in equity to quiet title to real estate. As originally brought these actions were in the name of James K. P. Shetler as plaintiff. Before trial, his death was suggested, and the present plaintiff, administrator of his estate, was substituted. The actions were tried separately in the court below, but, as each involved substantially the same fact conditions and issues, they have been submitted together in this court, and may be disposed of in one opinion. In each case at the close of the evidence for plaintiff on motion of defendants there was a decree dismissing the petition and for costs as against plaintiff. Plaintiff appeals.-- Reversed.

Reversed.

Volney Kent, for appellant.

Theo. F. Bradford and Cummings & Mote, for appellees.

OPINION

BISHOP, J.

From the allegations made in the several petitions, and the admissions, contained in the answers filed thereto, it appears that George Shetler, a resident of Marshalltown, died on March 26, 1901, intestate. He left surviving him, as his only heirs at law two sons, James K. P. Shetler and George H. Shetler; one daughter, Samantha S. C. Weber; and one granddaughter, Addie Stewart, the only surviving child of Electa J. Hazen, a daughter of said George Shetler and deceased at and prior to his death. At the time of the death of said George Shetler the title to the several tracts of land involved in these actions stood in his name upon the records of Marshall county. After the death of said George Shetler, and under circumstances hereinafter detailed, there was found a deed which had been formally executed and acknowledged by him as of date April 11, 1892, and by the terms of which the real estate involved in the first of the above-entitled actions was conveyed to Electa Jane Hazen. Such deed was taken possession of by the defendant Addie Stewart, as the sole surviving heir of her mother, named therein as grantee, and placed of record. At the same time there was found a deed, formally executed and acknowledged, as of date January 1, 1898, by the terms of which the real estate involved in the second of the above entitled actions was conveyed to Samantha S. C. Weber. Such deed was taken possession of by Mrs. Weber and placed of record. Subsequently, and before the commencement of this action, she conveyed to her daughter and co-defendant Bessie Weber. The contention of plaintiff, as to each of said deeds, is that while executed by George Shetler, the same never became effectual by a delivery accomplished during his lifetime. Accordingly it is insisted by plaintiff that the ownership of an undivided one-fourth interest in the respective properties became vested in his decedent at once upon the death of George Shetler. In the several answers the fact of delivery is asserted.

I. George H. Shetler was made a party defendant to each of the actions, but did not appear in any way thereto. On the respective trials he was called as a witness by plaintiff, and, over the objection of the answering defendants, was allowed to testify that for twenty-four years he and his father had occupied the same storeroom and office for business purposes; that in the office was a safe owned by the witness, but in which was a lock drawer used solely by his father for keeping private papers; that prior to the death of his father, he, the witness, was ignorant as to the contents of such drawer. Further, the witness testified that on the morning after his father's funeral a house servant brought to the store and gave into his charge a bunch of keys that had belonged to his father; that shortly thereafter his sister Mrs. Weber, with her daughter Bessie, came to the store and that he then in their presence unlocked the private drawer in the safe and found therein the deeds to Mrs. Hazen and Mrs. Weber for the properties in controversy, both of which deeds Mrs. Weber took away with her. The witness denied having any previous knowledge of the existence of such deeds.

The objection to the competency of the witness and his evidence was based on Code, section 4604. That section provides that no party to an action, or person interested in the event thereof, shall be examined as a witness in regard to any personal transaction or communication between such witness and a person at the commencement of such action deceased against the heir at law, next of kin, assignee, etc., of such deceased person. Conceding, as we may, for the purpose of these cases that the provisions of the statute are broad enough to include within its favor the grantees of a deceased person, still, we think, the testimony as here offered and introduced by plaintiff did not fall within the prohibition of the statute. It was not of, or concerning, any personal transaction or communication that this witness was interrogated. Nor was any such subject-matter included in the testimony given by him. The rule of the statute does not operate to close the mouth of a witness as to any matter of fact coming to his knowledge in...