Studer v. Seyer

• Citation: 69 Ga. 125
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 30 September 1882
• Parties: Studer, administrator. vs. seyer.

69 Ga. 125

Studer, administrator. vs. seyer.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

SEPTEMBER TERM, 1882.

Wills. Contracts. Specific Performance. Equity. Before John M. Guerrard, Esq., Judge pro had vice. Chatham Superior Court. June Term, 1882.

Reported in the decision.

W. Grayson Mann; S. Yates Levy; W. D. Harden; R. R. Richards, for plaintiff in error.

Denmark & Adams, for defendant.

Crawford, Justice.

Franz X. Bingel, a citizen of Georgia, died at Savannah in July, 1879;' the plaintiff in error was appointed his administrator, and possessed himself of his estate. Frederick Seyer, a citizen of New Jersey, offered for probate in that state a paper writing purporting to be the last willand testament of the said Bingel, which was probated and admitted to record. By this will the said Seyer was the sole legatee, and this suit was brought to recover the whole estate from the administrator, upon the grounds specifically set out in complainant\'s bill of complaint.

He alleges that the paper writing, though not good as a will in this state, was nevertheless made upon good and valuable consideration, and in recompense, discharge and payment for valuable services rendered by the complainant and his wife to Bingel and his wife, and that the said Bingel meant that the said paper writing should be irrevocable and in the nature of a deed conveying a fee simple interest in the property conveyed, subject only to a life estate of the said Bingel therein; that the services rendered by him and his wife to Bingel and his wife were at his house, where they had gone on account of the yellow fever in the city of Savannah; that after their arrival the said Bingel was taken sick with the fever, and as he was convalescing his wife was taken and soon thereafter died; that during their entire illness they received the constant care and attention of himself and wife; that his business was broken up; that in addition to the devoting of their whole time to the care of the said Bingel and wife, and the loss of their said business, that he laid out and expended his earnings and money for food, fuel, med-icine and other necessaries for them whilst they were so in his house; that his wife, in consequence of the trouble, over-work and grief attendant upon the sickness of the said Bingel and his wife, who was her sister, has never recovered from the shock which her system then received. He further alleges that the said Bingel after his convalescence expressed his gratitude to them, and said that whilst he could never repay the kindness which he had received, yet he would do all in his power to do so, and in pursuance of that promise, he made and delivered the writing named, and he, the complainant, submits to the court that in law it was an equitable transfer of the whole estate ofthe said Bingel to him in payment for the services and benefits derived to the said Bingel and his wife, subject only to his life estate therein. But even if this be not so, he then avers that the said Bingel was at the time of his death legally due and owing to him for the said services and benefits the sum of $6,000.00 upon a fair and reasonable estimate of their value.

The prayer of the bill is that the defendant discover under oath all such matters and things as he may know, or be informed of, going to show and establish the claim of the said Seyer to the whole estate, or such part of it as he may be lawfully entitled to. He further prays that the court shall so construe and reform the said writing as to have it speak the true intent and meaning of the said Bingel, and so as to vest in him the title to, and possession of, the property therein designated. And if the writing cannot be so construed, by reason of the stringent and technical rules of law, that the court will proceed and decree to complainant the amount, with interests and costs, that maybe reasonably and fairly due him from the estate upon an account for his services and expenses and losses, as they have been set forth in his said bill.

The defendant by answer, denies all knowledge of the matters and things set forth in complainant's bill, but from information and belief, admits that his intestate did make a certain will, void by the laws of Georgia, as set forth in his bill, but for what purpose or object, or upon what consideration, if any, he has no knowledge. He further answers upon information and belief that the wife of the intestate and complainant were sisters, and that the services and attentions which were rendered were given on account of natural love and affection, but if entitled to be paid for at all, are not worth anything like the amount claimed. He denies that the will was ever intended to convey any present estate, and prays the judgment of the court thereon, and further submits that all and singular the matters of relief sought by the com-plainant\'s bill, are not manifested or proved by any writing, and are within the statute of frauds and perjuries, which he sets up and pleads in bar of the relief sought by said bill.

At the hearing and before the empanelling of the jury to try the cause, the defendant moved the court to dismiss the bill of complainant upon the grounds:

(1.) That no cause of action is set out in said bill.

(2.) That there is no equity in said bill.

The motion was overruled and the trial proceeded. After the complainant had closed his testimony, the defendant again moved the court to dismiss the complainant's suit, upon the ground that there was no equity in the case as made out by the bill and answer and evidence thereunder, which motion the court overruled, and the case, after further testimony...