Underwood v. Brockman
| Decision Date | 05 October 1836 |
| Citation | 34 Ky. 309 |
| Parties | Underwood v. Brockman and Others. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CHRISTIAN COUNTY.
Mr Owsley for appellant.
Mr Cates for appellees.
Sometime in the year 1810, Elizabeth L., daughter of William Brockman of Virginia, against her father's advice, intermarried with Charles Bronaugh, a poor and rather prodigal young man by trade a wheelwright; who, afterwards, in the fall of the same year, removed to Kentucky, in company with her unmarried brother, Joshua L. Brockman; to whom her father delivered some slaves, to be kept and controlled, in this state, in trust for her benefit.
Origin of Underwood's claim.
Joshua L. Brockman accordingly brought the slaves to Kentucky, and, living with Bronaugh and wife, exercised dominion, according to the trust, until after Bronaugh's death, which occurred in January, 1811.
As Bronaugh owned but little, if any, property, excepting his tools, and a horse and gig, and an interest in a bond made payable to himself, for one thousand dollars, which had been advanced by him to John Rochester, on loan, in the absence of Joshua L. Brockman, and a part, probably the greater part, of which was the money of the said Joshua--his effects were retained and disposed of by his widow and her said brother, without a formal administration.
About two years after Bronaugh's death, William Brockman gave to Joseph Mason, with whom the widow had, in the mean time, intermarried, the slaves he had previously delivered in trust to Joshua L. Brockman.
Ann Eliza Bronaugh--the only issue of the marriage between Charles Bronaugh and Elizabeth L. Brockman, and who was reared and educated by Joshua L. Brockman and her mother and step-father--having intermarried with one William Underwood-he, not long afterwards, that is, in the winter of 1832, asserted a claim, in consequence of his marriage, to all the slaves who had been delivered by William Brockman to Joshua L. Brockman, to be brought to Kentucky for his daughter's benefit, and to all the increase of those slaves, and also to the value of the horse and gig and tools, and to the whole sum loaned to Rochester, and legal interest thereon from the date of the bond which Rochester had given, and the amount of which had been collected by Joshua L. Brockman, after the death of Bronaugh.
The facts exhibited in the record show satisfactorily, that Mrs. Underwood had received from Joshua L. Brockman a horse worth as much as that of which her father died possessed; that the gig and tools were not worth, at their utmost value, more than one hundred and fifty dollars; and that a portion of the money loaned to Rochester, and probably as much as seven hundred dollars thereof, belonging to Joshua L. Brockman, and there is neither proof nor intimation, that Charles Bronaugh owned, at the time of his death, any other estate than that which has been just enumerated and described--unless he had title to the slaves, and the proofs leave no reasonable ground to doubt, that he never had any vested or legal right to any of them.
According to these deductions, it would appear that, the widow being entitled to one third, the distributive interest of Mrs. Underwood could not have exceeded three hundred dollars, at the time of her father's death. But even if her father owned the whole of the thousand dollars loaned to Rochester, the utmost value of her interest could not have been greater than about seven hundred and sixty dollars--and there can be no doubt that, her maintenance until her marriage should extinguish all pretence of claim to interest on her distributive portion.
Nevertheless, Brockman being disabled by a protracted rheumatism, which had confined him generally to his bed for about fifteen years, and moreover being so much alarmed and disturbed with the apprehension of a suit, with which Underwood threatened him, as, in the opinion of many persons, to be non compos ; and Mrs. Mason--whose last husband was then dead, leaving four infant children by her, and one child by a former wife--being ignorant and fearful of the annoyance and danger of a suit--Underwood succeeded in procuring, what he denominates a compromise, in writing, signed, May 25th, 1832, by himself and by Brockman and one Kay, the husband of Mason's daughter by his first wife, and by Mrs. Mason, as guardian of her four infant children by Mason--whereby it was stipulated, that Underwood and wife and Mason's five children should have equal distributive interests in all the slaves, and also in a tract of land which belonged to Mason at the time of his death; and, as the slaves had been previously divided between Mrs. Mason and Mason's five children, it was agreed that she, as guardian for her four infant children, should pay to Underwood, five hundred and sixty-two dollars, and that Kay, for himself and wife, should pay him one hundred and twelve dollars, forty and one-third cents, in lieu of his conventional sixth part; and it was also agreed that, at the death of Mrs. Mason, Underwood should have one-sixth part of the slaves allotted to her for dower, and should also be entitled to a sixth part of whatever property might, in the mean time, come to her by " gift, descent or otherwise from her father or mother; " and the writing also recited, that Underwood and wife had been " greatly induced to enter into this amicable adjustment," by the fact that Brockman had, " by deed of gift," secured to them, at his death, one-sixth part of his whole estate.
A writing called " a compromise" which Underwood, untained from Brockman, Bronaugh's widow and others, by threatening them with suits.
In addition to the foregoing contract, Joshua L. Brockman, about the same time, gave his note to Underwood for nine hundred and thirty-nine dollars, which he afterwards paid to him, and also, on the 10th of May, 1832, conveyed to him a tract of land containing about four hundred acres, and worth between sixteen hundred and two thousand dollars--for no other consideration than Underwood's claim in right of his wife.
Money and land extorted from Brockman, by Underwoid, under pretence of claims in right of his wife.
Mrs. Mason having given her obligation for the five hundred and sixty-two dollars, and also for the one hundred and twelve dollars, forty and one-third cents, and Underwood having obtained judgments on both obligations against her, and also against Joshua L. Brockman as her surety--she and her four infant children filed a bill in chancery against Underwood and wife, and Kay and wife, and against Joshua L. Brockman, for enjoining the judgments, and for rescinding the contract of compromise, for alleged fraud, surprise, and want of consideration.
Judg't against the widow and Brockman, her surety, on notes given in the compromise; and the present bill--to enjoin the judgments, rescind the compromise, for fraud, & c.
Brockman made his answer a cross bill against Underwood, and, on the like grounds, prayed for a cancelment of the deed for the tract of land, for a restitution of the nine hundred and thirty-nine dollars, and for general relief.
Ans. of B. and cross bill by him, for restoration of the money and the land extorted from him.
Kay, in his answer, concurred in the allegations and prayer of the bill.
Ans. of Kay.
But Underwood denied the charges of fraud and insisted that he was justly entitled to all the slaves and to the whole of Rochester's bond and interests thereon, and that, therefore, he had not obtained as much by his contracts as he was entitled to; but, that, if he was not entitled to the slaves, or to any interest in them, or to more than three hundred dollars of Rochester's bond, still, as the controversy was settled by compromise without fraud, the chancellor, who favors such adjustments of family disputes, should not disturb the contract of the parties.
Ans. of Underwood.
The circuit court, however, perpetuated the injunctions to the judgments; rescinded the contract between Underwood and Mrs. Mason and her children, and decreed a re-conveyance to Brockman, of the tract o?? land which he had conveyed to Underwood, and a cancelment of the deed of gift for one-sixth of his estate. And Underwood, having appealed, now insists that the decree is altogether erroneous, and should therefore be reversed by this court.
Decree of the circuit court.
An individual sets up an unfounded claim t?? certain slaves, the property of infant heirs; their mother, being their guardian, and being threatened with suits for the slaves and for other demands connected with the same claim, is induced to give her note, with security, by way of compromise for a certain portion of the value of the slaves; judgment is obtained on the note and she and her children file a bill, with injunction, to be relieved against the judgment, set aside the compromise, & c., (ut supra) held, that a compromise made by a guardian, of a baseless claim against the wards, shall not bind them; nor shall the obligation given upon the comprom se, be enforced against her individually.
The husband of a co-heir, who had, without the participation of his wife, acquiesced in the compromise, and given his note for her rateable proportion, shall, for like reasons, be, in like manner relieved, especially, as the contract was executory, and not executed.
Vide post--for additional reasons, upon which the agreement and " compromise" made by the guardian, might be set aside.--p. 320.
Not doubting, that according to uncontroverted facts, Bronaugh had no right to any of the slaves, and that,...
To continue reading
Request your trial