Sullivan v. Brown
| Decision Date | 05 March 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 34564.,34564. |
| Citation | 31 N.W.2d 439,225 Minn. 524 |
| Parties | SULLIVAN v. BROWN et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Albin S. Pearson, Judge.
Action by May A. Sullivan, executrix of the estate of Alice C. Manternach, against Freda Brown and another to recover property which the deceased had given to the defendants, on ground that defendants exerted undue influence over the deceased, and that the deceased lacked mental capacity to make the gifts. From an order denying plaintiff's motion for amended findings and conclusions or a new trial, the plaintiff appeals.
Lipschultz & Grady, of St. Paul, for appellant.
Frank J. Danz, of St. Paul, for respondents.
Appeal from an order denying plaintiff's motion for amended findings and conclusions or a new trial.
Plaintiff as executrix of the estate of Alice C. Manternach contends that defendants exerted undue influence over decedent and that the latter lacked mental capacity at the time of the transactions here involved.
The questions for consideration are: (1) Was there sufficient evidence to sustain the trial court's findings that defendants did not exercise any undue influence over decedent and that the latter was mentally competent at the time of the transactions here involved? (2) Did the trial court commit prejudicial error in the admission of evidence?
Decedent, a resident of St. Paul, Minnesota, died testate on August 21, 1945. Defendants, who were not related to decedent, are sisters; both are registered nurses and have practiced their profession in St. Paul for many years. They had lived at their home in St. Paul where decedent stayed with them for about 12 years prior to July 1946. Decedent was employed for many years in the probation office in the courthouse in St. Paul and continued such employment until about March 1, 1945, when she was granted a leave of absence upon the advice of her physician. She first became acquainted with defendants in 1933, when defendant Bertha Werner went to decedent's home to act as nurse for decedent's brother who was ill. The nursing service continued for about four years.
It appears from the evidence and findings that after 1933 a strong friendship developed between decedent and defendants (they exchanged Christmas gifts and were apparently devoted to each other) and that this friendship continued until the death of decedent. It also appears that decedent had been living alone in her home in St. Paul subsequent to the death of her father and brother until May 1944, when she went to live with defendants. She continued to live with them until she died, except for a time from March 3 to May 11, 1945, when she was hospitalized for high blood pressure, kidney trouble, and slight paralysis.
Decedent's employer, John J. Doyle, testified that he had known decedent for about 22 years and that in the later years of her life she was employed as a probation officer in the Ramsey county probation office. He was in close contact with her work and saw her frequently while she was in his employ. He said that he observed a change in her physical and mental condition in 1944. He testified that about a year before she asked for a leave of absence she was not able to handle dictation or meet a situation properly, and that he had relieved her of "a lot of work" at that time. It was his observation that during the last six months of 1944 when she was employed in his office she was not coherent in her talk with people in connection with some of her duties. He testified that while decedent was ill at defendants' home he inquired about her condition and that defendant Bertha Werner informed him that "she wasn't very well and she had kidney trouble and at times she was mentally off." He also testified that Miss Werner suggested that he see Dr. Benjamin B. Souster, who was attending decedent prior to her death. On January 26, 1945, Mr. Doyle wrote Dr. Souster, enclosing a statement from decedent authorizing the doctor to give him a statement of her physical condition. In his letter Doyle said it was necessary that he have complete information as to her physical condition, and among other things he said that she seemed to have difficulty in coordinating. Dr. Souster replied February 6, 1945, stating in part that decedent was suffering from an essential hypertension associated with some impairment of her kidney function; that "Her coordination is poor and she has some speech defect as well as very definite impairment in her thinking and memory processes." When questioned on direct examination as to whether there was something wrong with decedent's thinking and memory processes at the time he wrote Doyle, the doctor said that was determined primarily from the information in the letter from Doyle, as he made no special test to determine it.
After receiving this letter from the doctor, Mr. Doyle granted decedent a leave of absence as of March 1, 1945. She never returned to her employment. Doyle called on her several times for a few minutes at a time while she was in the hospital and observed that her answers were disconnected. He also called on her when she returned from the hospital to defendants' home and said that her answers seemed to be better. He said that she apparently had access to the whole house, to all appearances seemed to be getting good care, and that she and defendants appeared to be devoted to each other. He also said, "I didn't think anybody else would take care of her but the nurses [defendants]." He concluded by saying that decedent seemed to be satisfied with the place where she was living.
Decedent was under the care of Dr. Souster from June 2, 1944, until she died. He testified that she had been hospitalized from August 7 to August 31, 1944, mainly for observation and kidney function tests. At times when she was in the hospital in 1944 and 1945 and sometimes when at home she was in a state of confusion as to where she was, and at times she had delusions about her father and brother and spoke of them as though both were living, when in fact they were both dead. The doctor described the cause of such confusion as cerebral spasms. He claimed that these spasms were temporary and that she was mentally competent to handle her own affairs most of the time until shortly before she died.
The record shows that until sometime in July 1945 decedent made out bank deposit slips in her own handwriting.
On November 8, 1944, decedent made her last will and testament, which was probated in Ramsey county. Emma Thill, one of the two residuary legatees in the will, testified that she saw decedent daily in January and February 1945 and for the last time about two weeks before she died. She testified that she saw her three times in 1945 while decedent was residing in defendants' home. She said that there was evidence of friendliness between defendants and decedent and that decedent seemed to be very well satisfied and happy in defendants' home. The witness said that she had some business transactions with decedent on May 19, 1944, at which time she said that the latter was mentally clear. The witness was asked by the court, "* * * was there ever a time you saw her after May 19th, 1944 when she was not mentally clear?" to which she replied, "I would say not."
The items which plaintiff seeks to have returned for the benefit of the estate include the following: The proceeds from a joint bank account held by decedent and defendant Freda Brown totaling $2,510.87 at the time of decedent's death; two Northern Pacific Railway Company bonds, each in the principal sum of $1,000, valued at $2,460 at the time of decedent's death, which bonds had been assigned by decedent to defendant Freda Brown; United States War Savings bonds in the principal sum of $3,500, purchased with the money of decedent and made payable on her death to defendant Freda Brown in the amount of $1,750 and to defendant Bertha Werner in the amount of $1,750; a fur coat of an estimated worth of $400 and a mink scarf of an estimated worth of $100; cash in the amount of $375; and such other sums as the accounting which plaintiff prayed for might reveal that plaintiff was entitled to. The court found:
1. It is a well-established rule of this court that when an action is tried by a court without a jury its findings of fact are entitled to the same weight as the verdict of a jury and will not be reversed on appeal unless they are manifestly and palpably contrary to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hartz's Estate, In re
... ... 199, 30 L.R.A.,N.S., 1181; Glass v. Newport Clothing Co., Inc., 110 Vt. 368, 8 A.2d 651; Black's Law Dictionary, 4 Ed., p. 82 ... 2 See, Sullivan v. Brown, 225 Minn. 524, 31 N.W.2d 439; In re Restoration to Capacity of Masters, 216 Minn. 553, 13 N.W.2d 487, 158 A.L.R. 1210; Bird v. Johnson, 199 ... ...
- Edelstein v. Duluth, M. & I. R. Ry. Co., 34418.
-
Dempsey v. Meighen
... ... Sonnesyn, 222 Minn. 528, 25 N.W.2d 468; Cohen v. Steinke, 223 [251 MINN 573] Minn. 292, 26 N.W.2d 843; Sullivan v. Brown, 225 Minn. 524, 31 N.W.2d 439; Kelly v. Kelly, 243 Minn. 114, 66 N.W.2d 606. This is true even though this court might have found the facts ... ...
-
State v. Peterson
... ... 3 State v. Simonsen, 252 Minn. 315, 89 N.W.2d 910; Clarke v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co., 92 Minn. 418, 100 N.W. 231; cf. Sullivan v. Brown, 225 Minn. 524, 31 N.W.2d 439; In re Estate of Cunningham, 219 Minn. 80, 17 N.W.2d 85 ... 4 See State v. Simonsen, supra, where we have ... ...