Stahl v. Stahl

• Decision Date: 21 February 1905
• Citation: 214 Ill. 131,73 N.E. 319
• Parties: STAHL et al. v. STAHL et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

214 Ill. 131

73 N.E. 319

STAHL et al.

v.STAHL et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 21, 1905.

Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; M. Kavanagh, Judge.

Bill by Gustav A. Stahl and others against John Stahl and others. From a decree in favor of defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

Morse Ives, for appellants.

John F. Haas, for appellees.

This was a bill in chancery filed by the appellants against the appellees in the superior court of Cook county to establish a trust in favor of the children of John G. and Fredericka L. Stahl, deceased, in certain premises located in the city of Chicago, known as No. 15 Blue Island avenue, the legal title to which was in John Stahl. On July 7, 1878, John G. Stahl died intestate, seised in fee simple of said premises, upon which he and his family then resided, and which were of the value of about $5,000. He was also possessed of personal property of the value of about $1,000. He left, him surviving, as his widow, Fredericka L. Stahl, and Emma O., Robert G., and Louisa F., who were of age, and Frederick W., Frank A., John, and Gustav A., who were minors, as his children and sole heirs at law. The widow was appointed administratrix of the estate. The estate owned debts to the amount of about $800. The widow's award was fixed at $2,265. She was discharged as administratrix in 1880. Prior to such discharge all of said children conveyed their interests in said premises to their mother, and the minors, upon arriving at age, confirmed such conveyances by making to her new deeds. On the 18th day of August, 1900, Fredericka L. Stahl conveyed said premises, without consideration, to Frank A. Stahl. She died intestate on February 11, 1901, leaving her surviving as her heirs, the children hereinbefore named, and on September 5, 1902, Frank A. Stahl conveyed, without consideration, said premises to his brother John Stahl. Answers and replications were filed, and the case was tried in open court, and a decree was entered finding said premises were held by the defendant Frank A. Stahl, after the execution and delivery to him of a warranty deed from Fredericka L. Stahl dated August 18, 1900, under an express trust for the benefit of the children of said Fredericka L. Stahl, and were held in like manner by John Stahl after the execution and delivery of the deed to him on September 5, 1902, by Frank A. Stahl; that said express trust was not manifested or proved by any writing signed by Fredericka L., Lrank A., or John Stahl, or either of them; and that, the statute of frauds having been pleaded by Frank A. and John Stahl, said trust cannot be maintained, but by reason of said statute is null and void; whereupon the bill was dismissed for want of equity, and Gustav A. and Louisa F. have prosecuted an appeal to this court, and have assigned as error the action of the court in dismissing said bill for want of equity.

HAND, J. (after stating the facts).

The appellees averred in their answer that the deed bearing date August 18, 1900, executed by Fredericka L. Stahl to Frank A. Stahl, and the deed bearing date September 5, 1902, executed by Frank A. Stahl to John Stahl, were absolute deeds of conveyance. It is apparent from the evidence that John Stahl took title to said premises with notice of the manner in which Frank A. Stahl obtained title thereto from Fredericka L. Stahl, and that said premises are impressed in his hands with the same trust, if any, which was impressed thereon when the title thereto vested in Frank A. Stahl by virtue of the deed from his mother. The controlling question, therefore, in this case is, did Frank A. Stahl, at the time he conveyed said premises to John Stahl, hold the title thereto in trust for the benefit of the children of Fredericka L. Stahl, and if he did is such trust of that character that it can be enforced in a court of equity against Frank A. Stahl and John Stahl in favor of the children of Fredericka L. Stahl, deceased?

At the time Fredericka L. Stahl executed said deed to Frank A. Stahl she was 72 years of age and was sick in bed. The secrivener who prepared the deed was called by her grandson to her house at 11 o'clock at night. The deed was executed by her at about 12 o'clock of the same night. All her children, five in number, in the city of Chicago, were assembled at her house. The premises conveyed were then of the value of about $25,000-all the property she had. At that time Frank A. Stahl was a practicing physician in the city of Chicago, and earning from $3,000 to $4,000 per year. The relations existing between Fredericka L. and all her children, including Frank A., were friendly and confidential. No consideration was paid to her by Frank A. Stahl for the conveyance, and the premises were subsequently conveyed to John Stahl by Frank A. Stahl without consideration. Frank A. Stahl, after the death of his mother, and John, after the conveyance to him by Frank A., both admitted that their brothers and sisters were equally interested with them in said premises. Such admissions were denied by them upon the trial. Louisa F., who was present on the night of the 18th of August, when the deed from Fredericka L. to Frank A. was executed, testified that her mother was sick in bed; that her brothers and sisters in the city of Chicago were at her bedside, as it was thought she was about to die; that the children talked the matter over, and it was agreed it was advisable to have the mother make a deed to said premises so that they could be divided without expense after her death; that it was first talked of having the same conveyed to her sister; that it was finally agreed to have them conveyed to Frank A., and that each child was to have a paper from him showing the interest of each therein; that they sent for a lawyer, who came about midnight; that he prepared a deed; that they then aroused their mother, and explained to her that she might not get well, and they thought it best that she execute some papers; that she said to her children, ‘Is it your wish to have this paper made?’ and they said, ‘Yes,’ whereupon she was held up in the bed and signed the deed. The other children, four in number, the lawyer who prepared the deed, and the grandson, who were present, admitted that Fredericka L. Stahl was sick; that she was in bed; that the lawyer was sent for in the middle of the night; that the deed was executed about midnight; that some of the children stayed up in the house all night; that no consideration was paid for the conveyance; that they knew no reason why the deed was made to Frank A., and that there was no reason for its execution at that time, but testified Fredericka L. was not very sick; that her mind was clear; that she said she wanted to convey all of her property absolutely to Frank A.; that nothing was siad at that time about Frank A. holding the property in trust for the benefit of himself and her other children; and that the conveyance was an absolute conveyance to Frank A.

The chancellor saw and heard the witnesses testify, and evidently, from the decree entered by him, did not adopt the view of the witnesses for appellees, who testified to what took place and what was said at the time of the execution of the deed, but did adopt the view of Louisa F., as he found in the decree that at the time the deed was executed and delivered to Frank A. there was an express parol trust agreement that Frank A. was to hold the title to said property for the benefit of all the children of Fredericka L. We have read the evidence of all the persons who were present at the time of the execution of the deed to Frank A., who testified upon the trial, and are of the opinion the chancellor was fully justified in giving credence to the testimony of Louisa F. instead of to the testimony of the other witnesses who testified as to what was said and what took place at the time the deed was executed. The question for decision, therefore, is narrowed to whether the facts as proven show the creation of such a trust at the time of the execution of the deed to Frank A. as a court of equity can enforce in favor of the children of Fredericka L., deceased.

The statute of frauds, requiring an express trust in regard to lands to be evidenced by writing, reads as follows: ‘All...