Spotts v. Eisenhauer

• Decision Date: 14 May 1906
• Docket Number: 14-1905
• Parties: Spotts v. Eisenhauer, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

31 Pa.Super. 89

Spotts v. Eisenhauer, Appellant

No. 14-1905

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

May 14, 1906

Argued March 6, 1906

Appeal by defendants, from decree of C.P. Union Co.-1904, No. 2, on bill in equity in case of William H. Spotts, Executor of Henry Eisenhauer et al., v. Semmira Eisenhauer et al.

Bill in equity for specific performance. Before McClure, P. J., and J. H. Blind and Henry Ernst, associate judges, unlearned in the law.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

Error assigned was decree for specific performance.

William H. Hackenberg, for appellant. -- This was the specific performance of an inequitable and unconscionable bargain Schimpff v. Dime Deposit & Discount Bank, 208 Pa 380; Friend v. Lamb, 152 Pa. 529; Elbert v O'Neil, 102 Pa. 302; Diamond State Iron Co. v Todd, 12 Cent. Repr. 341; Foll's Estate, 91 Pa. 434; Oil Creek R. R. Co. v. Atlantic & Great Western R. R. Co., 57 Pa. 65; Maguire v. Heraty, 163 Pa. 381; Miles v. Stevens, 3 Pa. 21; Freetly v. Barnhart, 51 Pa. 279; Weise's App., 72 Pa. 351; Miller v. Fulmer, 25 Pa.Super. 106.

George B. Reimensnyder, with him Philip B. Linn, for appellees. -- The sufficiency of the consideration for a compromise is not to be determined by the soundness of the original claim of either party. The very object of compromise is to avoid the risk or trouble of that question. This principle is especially applicable to family arrangements and compromises: Lewallen's Estate, 27 Pa.Super. 320; Weaver's App., 115 Pa. 59; Kramer v. Dinsmore, 152 Pa. 264; Ralston v. Ihmsen, 204 Pa. 588.

Before Rice, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Head and Beaver, JJ.

OPINION

PORTER, J.

The plaintiffs in this proceeding sought to enforce the specific performance of two contracts. Under the provisions of the first contract Semmira Eisenhauer, one of the defendants, had agreed to resign as executrix of the will of her deceased husband, Henry Eisenhauer, and to waive all right to commissions as said executrix. The court below found as a fact, upon abundantly sufficient and uncontradicted evidence, that Semmira Eisenhauer always had been willing to perform these covenants, and had offered to do so before the bill was filed. It is therefore manifest that as to that contract there was no warrant for the filing of the bill and putting costs upon the defendants. The court further found, upon evidence equally satisfactory, that this contract was entirely distinct from and was concluded before the beginning of the negotiations which resulted in the contract hereinafter referred to. This eliminates the agreement of the executrix to resign and waive her right to commissions from consideration in the present case.

The real question at issue arises out of another contract relating to the sale of a judgment held by the estate of Henry Eisenhauer against William S. Eisenhauer, his son. William S. Eisenhauer was at the date of the death of his father indebted to the latter to a considerable amount, $ 900 of which was in the form of a judgment, in the court of common pleas of Union county. William S. Eisenhauer was insolvent, and the only property, real or personal, possessed by him out of which the money could be made on the judgment held by the estate was a farm upon which that judgment was a lien. The parties plaintiff and defendant met, in December, 1903, and William H. Spotts, acting executor of Henry Eisenhauer, with the consent of the other plaintiffs, the legatees and devisees under the will, agreed to sell the $ 900 judgment held by the estate against William S. Eisenhauer to Semmira Eisenhauer, his mother, and to release William S. Eisenhauer from liability for his entire indebtedness to the estate, in consideration of which Semmira Eisenhauer agreed to release to the estate $ 900 out of a legacy of $ 1,300 which she took under the will of her deceased husband, Henry Eisenhauer, and William S. Eisenhauer agreed to release all his rights as a legatee under the will. There was some delay in the execution of the papers necessary to carry the contract into effect, and about two months later, or early in February, 1904, Semmira Eisenhauer, through her attorney, notified the other parties that her offer was withdrawn and she declined to carry the arrangement into effect. The plaintiffs subsequently filed this bill to compel the specific performance of the contract. The thing which it is proposed to compel Mrs. Eisenhauer to do is to buy from the estate a judgment which it holds against her son, William S. Eisenhauer, who is also the son of the decedent, and pay for that judgment its full face value by releasing $ 900 of the legacy which she took under the will of her deceased husband. We must not lose sight of the fact that this is not an action at law for damages for the breach of the contract, nor is it a distribution of the estate of Henry Eisenhauer in the orphans' court; it is a proceeding in equity to specially enforce the contract according to its very terms. What, under the terms of the contract in question, do the plaintiffs propose to give Mrs. Eisenhauer for this $ 900? A judgment for $ 900 against William S. Eisenhauer, who it is admitted is and was insolvent, and the only source from which that judgment could possibly be paid is a certain farm upon which the judgment is a lien. The learned judge of the court below after carefully considering the evidence found the following facts: " The farm of William S. Eisenhauer against which the judgment for $ 900 is a lien is worth about $ 35.00 per acre, or a total of $ 3,220. There are two prior liens, one for William H. Hackenberg's use for the sum of $ 1,900, and one in favor of Susan Fegley for $ 1,200, making a total of $ 3,100 of principal debt, on which there is no doubt some interest due -- how much we do not know --...