Snyder v. Snyder

• Decision Date: 02 December 1902
• Citation: 92 N.W. 353,131 Mich. 658
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: SNYDER et al. v. SNYDER et al.

92 N.W. 353

131 Mich. 658

SNYDER et al. v. SNYDER et al.

Supreme Court of Michigan

December 02, 1902

Appeal from circuit court, Hillsdale county, in chancery; Herbert E Winsor, Judge.

Suit by William Snyder and others against Benjamin Snyder and another. From a decree for defendants, complainants appeal. Affirmed as to defendant Benjamin Snyder, and reversed as to the other defendant.

Jacob Snyder and Elizabeth Snyder, his wife, came to Michigan in 1854, and settled upon a farm of 40 acres in Hillsdale county, where they lived during their lives. They had five children,--complainants William and John, defendants Benjamin and Thomas, and a daughter, Amelia, the mother of the other complainants. They were the sole heirs at law of said Jacob and Elizabeth. Jacob died in October, 1886, and Elizabeth in May, 1899. The title to the 40 acres was in Elizabeth. Both of them were illiterate, neither being able to write or read writing. At the time of Jacob's death the farm was worth about $2,200. John was then working the farm under a lease his father and mother living with him. Mrs. Snyder soon after went to live with the defendant Benjamin. John and Elizabeth did not agree, and John, soon after his father's death left the farm. March 5, 1886, Mrs. Snyder executed a power of attorney to defendant Thomas, giving him entire authority and control over her business affairs. On April 7, 1888, Mrs Snyder deeded the land in question to the defendant Benjamin for an express consideration of $1,600 and the further consideration expressed in the deed in the following language: 'Besides the above amount, one thousand six hundred dollars, the party of the second part is to maintain, clothe, and support in a respectable manner the said Elizabeth Snyder, of the first part, during her natural lifetime. All doctors' bills and funeral expenses is to be credited on his notes paid by him.' At the same time he gave back to her a mortgage upon the land for $1,600, and a promissory note, due six months after her death. The mortgage contained the following provisions: 'Besides the above amount, one thousand six hundred dollars, the parties of the first part is to maintain, clothe, and support in a respectful manner the said Elizabeth Snyder, of the second part, during her natural lifetime. All doctor bills and funeral expenses is to be credited on his notes paid by him. * * * Said note to become due six months after the death of said Elizabeth Snyder, and all moneys paid by him to be credited on his note.' On January 18, 1893, defendant Thomas placed upon record a pretended assignment of this mortgage from his mother to him, dated May 29, 1888. After the death of Mrs. Snyder, complainants filed this bill to set aside said deed, the mortgage, and the assignment thereof, on the ground of undue influence by the defendants, and the incompetency of Mrs. Snyder to execute them. The bill prays that the deed may be set aside, but, if that should be found to be valid, that the assignment of the mortgage to defendant Thomas be set aside and declared void. Testimony was taken in open court, and decree entered dismissing the bill.

B. E. Sheldon and C. A. Shepard, for appellants.

Sampson & Barre, for appellees.

GRANT J. (after stating the facts).

1. The circuit judge saw the witnesses, whose testimony in regard to the alleged incompetency of Mr. Snyder is in direct conflict. Neither of the defendants testified. Perhaps their testimony would have been of little avail on the question of her mental condition, on account of the bitter feeling existing between complainants and defendants. We are not able to say that the preponderance of evidence is with the complainants upon this question, as well as upon the question of undue influence, and are constrained, therefore, to sustain the finding of the circuit judge.

2. We cannot, however, concur with him that the assignment of the mortgage and the note by Mrs. Snyder to defendant Thomas was a gift inter vivos. It is not claimed that Thomas paid a valuable consideration. The record is barren of any evidence explaining the circumstances of the assignment, or tending to show any gift to him. A disinterested witness, whose testimony is...