Shuee v. Shuee

• Decision Date: 30 January 1885
• Docket Number: 11,182
• Citation: 100 Ind. 477
• Parties: Shuee et al. v. Shuee
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

100 Ind. 477

Shuee et al. v. Shuee

No. 11,182

Supreme Court of Indiana

January 30, 1885

Petition for a Rehearing Overruled April 4, 1885.

From the Tippecanoe Circuit Court.

The judgment is reversed with costs, with directions to the court to proceed in accordance with this opinion and enter judgment for the defendants.

J. R Coffroth, T. A. Stuart, G. O. Behm, A. O. Behm, C. E. Lake and J. S. McMillin, for appellants.

W. H Bryan, W. P. Wood, W. D. Wallace and W. C. L. Taylor, for appellee.

OPINION

Mitchell, J.

Susan Shuee brought her bill in equity in the circuit court of Tippecanoe county, asking that upon the facts stated therein she should be relieved from a certain deed or contract of settlement, executed by her, whereby she had assigned and released her interest in the estate of David Shuee, her deceased husband, to his children by a former marriage. The deed which is exhibited with her bill is of the tenor following:

"Whereas, my late husband, David Shuee, deceased, shortly prior to his death, made a partial distribution of his estate by conveying by deeds of conveyance, in which deeds I joined as his wife, certain real estate in Tippecanoe county, Indiana, to the children and heirs of said David Shuee; and whereas, I have heretofore received of said David Shuee the sum of nine thousand dollars ($ 9,000), to be applied on my interest in the estate of said David Shuee, deceased, and have this day received of William D. Shuee, administrator of the estate of David Shuee, deceased, the sum of five hundred dollars ($ 500) as and for the amount allowed me by law as the widow of said David Shuee, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged: Now, in consideration of the further sum of fifteen hundred dollars ($ 1,500), to me in hand paid by William D. Shuee, Amanda Kirkpatrick and Josephine Chappell, the receipt whereof I hereby acknowledge, I hereby assign and set over to the said William D. Shuee, Amanda Kirkpatrick and Josephine Chappell, the children and heirs of said David Shuee, deceased, all further right, title and interest which I may have, of whatever nature, in and to the estate, both real and personal, of said David Shuee, deceased.

"Dated the 28th day of May, 1881. Susan Shuee."

Issues were duly made, and on the hearing the court, having been requested to do so, found the facts specially and stated its conclusions of law thereon.

The material facts found were that David Shuee and Susan Shuee were married in May, 1871, and after living together amicably for a period of about nine years and a half, David Shuee died, leaving three children by a former marriage as his only heirs at law, and his widow, who was his second wife, and with whom he had no children, and leaving a personal estate amounting in value to about $ 21,529, and leaving no debts and no real estate.

The plaintiff had been married twice before her marriage to Shuee, and had children living by each of the former marriages. She had no property at the time of her marriage with Shuee, who, previous to that time, had acquired the bulk of all his property, and who, at the time of his death, was aged about seventy, the plaintiff being about eight years his junior.

In 1879 the deceased gave to each of his three children $ 2,000, giving to his wife at the same time $ 3,000, and in the year 1881 he gave to his children all of his real estate--$ 18,000 in value--about the same time giving his wife in cash $ 6,000.

At the time the last sum of money was paid her a receipt was prepared by the direction of her husband, which, after some changes, made to suit the plaintiff, was signed by her, and which reads as follows:

"April 20th, 1881.

"This certifies that I have received nine thousand dollars of David Shuee, being my share of division in the estate."

On the 27th day of May, 1881, the plaintiff having waived her right to administer upon her deceased husband's estate, William D. Shuee was duly appointed and qualified as administrator, and learning that their step-mother was making further claims upon the estate, the heirs procured the assignment hereinbefore set out to be prepared by their attorney, leaving the date and amount of consideration blank. They then procured a Mr. Davidson, who resided in the neighborhood, to meet them at the plaintiff's residence, that being also the residence of Josephine Chappell, one of the heirs, to assist in negotiating a settlement with the plaintiff. It is found that Davidson was an old resident of the neighborhood, a man esteemed for his intelligence, judgment and probity, who sometimes assisted litigants in the neighborhood before magistrates, had some experience in the settlement of estates, was a practical farmer, and not a lawyer. He enjoyed the entire respect and confidence of the plaintiff and defendants as well, and was related to all the parties. He was selected by the heirs because of their belief, that on account of his character and relations he would be better able to bring about a settlement between the parties than they themselves.

The plaintiff, at the time, was in a somewhat temporarily enfeebled condition of health, was a woman of fair average mental force and intelligence, with such business experience and capacity as are ordinary with women.

The heirs and Mr. Davidson having assembled at the plaintiff's residence on the 28th of May, 1881, she was informed by Mr. Davidson that the heirs desired to ascertain from her what she would take in addition to what had been paid her and release to them all her claims in the estate. After negotiations were had back and forth between the heirs and the plaintiff, such negotiations being conducted by Mr. Davidson, the plaintiff fixed her price at $ 2,000, saying that if she did not get that she would not take anything.

The contract was closed at $ 2,000, and the paper correctly read over to her before it was signed, William D. Shuee paying the money over to her out of funds which were in his hands as administrator, but he at the same time distributed $ 1,500 among the heirs, so that in effect each of the heirs paid $ 500 of the $ 1,500, while the administrator paid $ 500 to plaintiff as widow.

During the negotiations, the plaintiff, as it appears, was in no way misinformed as to the amount, value or condition of the estate of her husband; she was advised, however, by Mr. Davidson that in view of the fact that she had received $ 9,000 from her husband in his lifetime, he thought she ought to settle with the heirs on the basis proposed; and he also told her that the $ 9,000 which she had received would be charged against her in the final settlement.

The plaintiff has, ever since the settlement, retained the money paid her, and has not offered to rescind the contract or return all or any part of the money, nor has she brought it into court, but she does aver in her complaint that she is ready to abide the order of the court in that regard, and she also made a like offer at the trial.

The court inferred from the foregoing facts that the deed of...