Watkins v. Merrihew's Estate

• Decision Date: 09 January 1926
• Citation: 131 A. 794
• Parties: WATKINS v. MERRIHEW'S ESTATE.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

131 A. 794

WATKINS

v. MERRIHEW'S ESTATE.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Chittenden.

Jan. 9, 1926.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Chittenden County; Frank D. Thompson, Chancellor.

Suit for specific performance by Edward S. Watkins against the estate of Hiram Merrihew; Lincoln Merrihew, administrator. From a decree dismissing the bill, plaintiff appeals. Decree affirmed, and cause remanded.

The following facts were found:

About August 16, 1894, the plaintiff C. H. West, Samuel E. Burnham, Jesse McIntyre, c. B. Kendall, Samuel Moore, John W. Titcomb, and Hiram Merrihew purchased of Bernard H. Porter Ben Law Island of about 10 or 12 acres in Lake Champlain off from the town of Colchester, and by two deeds from Porter it was conveyed to them later. It was purchased for the purpose of being occupied by the purchasers as a club, and a clubhouse was to be built thereon, which was later built, to be occupied by them jointly.

On August 16, 1894, an agreement was drawn up as to the use and occupancy of the island, and was signed by all of said purchasers, except Mr. Titcomb, but he was a party to the same, and was bound by its provisions. Said agreement is as follows:

"Whereas, Ed. S. Watkins. C. H. West, Samuel E. Burnham, Jesse McIntyre, C. B. Kendall, Samuel Moore, John W. Titcomb, and Hiram Merrihew have together purchased, and now own, the island known as Ben Laws Island situated in Lake Champlain in the town of Colchester, county of Chittenden, and state of Vermont, and have agreed to expend thereon certain sums of money for improvements to said island, buildings thereon, and such other purposes as may be mutually agreed upon by and between said parties, now in consideration of the mutual promises hereinafter set forth, it is agreed that, should any of the aforesaid parties desire to dispose of his interest in said island and in whatever improvements have been made thereon, the remaining parties shall repay to him whatever money has been paid out by him in the purchase of said island in making improvements thereon without interest, said amount being $175, and upon the decease of any of the above parties the said sum shall be paid to heirs, executors and administrators. And each of the said parties hereby agrees to and with the others for himself, his heirs, executors, and administrators that he will not bargain, sell, or convey said property and improvements to any other person or persons or in any other manner than as above set forth, save that it should be eventually agreed at any time between all the parties who hold the said property and improvements to sell and dispose of the same then and in that case the said property may be sold to any person or persons whatsoever free from restrictions or condition by anything herein contained. Any of said parties who may so desire may with the consent of the other parties above mentioned erect a cottage for his private use on said land but after the erection of such a cottage his obligations for support of the clubhouse and his rights therein shall continue unchanged, and if he shall dispose of his interest in said land and improvements to the other parties as heretofore provided he shall not receive any compensation for the cottage rented for his private use unless the other parties chose to give him compensation therefor. In witness whereof the said parties have hereunto set their hands and seals at the city of Rutland this 16th day of August, A. D. 1894."

After the island was purchased, a clubhouse was built and maintained thereon by most of the purchasers. Hiram Merrihew never paid anything toward the erection and maintenance of the clubhouse.

At some time after the island was purchased, Hiram Merrihew, by virtue of the provisions of the agreement of August 16, 1894, erected a cottage, barn, and icehouse on the southeast corner of the island, which he occupied until his death.

On October 6, 1922, H. A. Bailey, the plaintiff's attorney, tendered to the defendant Lincoln Merrihew, as administrator of Hiram Merrihew's estate, $322, which sum was the amount of $175, and interest on the same from the date of Hiram Merrihew's death to the date of the tender. Such tender was refused by said Lincoln Merrihew. All exhibits are referred to and made a part of the findings. Other facts found appear in the opinion.

Argued before WATSON, C. J., and POWERS, TAYLOR, SLACK, and BUTLER, JJ.

H. A. Bailey, of Burlington, for appellant.

Chas. F. Black, of Burlington, for appellee.

WATSON, C. J. This bill is brought for specific performance of the agreement set forth in the statement of the case. No exception was taken to the facts found by the chancellor. A decree was rendered dismissing the bill with costs to the defendant. The case is here on the plaintiff's appeal. The decree must be affirmed for several reasons.

Under the two deeds from Bernard Porter the nine grantees took severally an undivided one-ninth interest in Ben Law Island, as tenants in common. Hiram Merrihew, one of the cotenants, died intestate on July 18, 1907, and one Harvey Merrihew was appointed administrator of his estate. Harvey Merrihew died on May 8, 1922, and on June 15th following Lincoln Merrihew was appointed administrator de bonis non of the estate of Hiram Merrihew, and has acted as such from that time. This bill was served on defendant October 13, 1922, and it was filed the 18th of the same month.

At the time of Hiram Merrihew's death, he owned his original undivided one-ninth interest in the island, and an undivided one-fifth of the interest of Samuel E. Burnham, another of the original cotenants. The findings state that Hiram Merrihew's estate now owns such interests. That this statement is not true in fact nor in law appears beyond question from the record before us. On the death of the intestate his said interests in the island at once vested in his heirs by descent, subject to the lien of the administrator when later appointed. Babbitt v. Bowen, 32 Vt. 437; Austin v. Bailey, 37 Vt. 219, 86 Am. Dec. 703; Alexander v. Stewart, 50 Vt. 87; Bridgman v. St. J. & L. C. R. R. Co., 58 Vt. 198, 2 A. 467; Coolidge v. Taylor, 85 Vt. 39, 80 A. 1038. But such lien was given only to the extent of so much as was required...