Whiteley v. Whiteley
| Citation | 78 N.W. 1009,120 Mich. 30 |
| Parties | WHITELEY ET AL. v. WHITELEY ET AL. |
| Decision Date | 18 April 1899 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
WHITELEY ET AL.
v.
WHITELEY ET AL.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
April 18, 1899.
Appeal from circuit court, Ingham county; Rollin H. Person, Judge.
Bill by Elizabeth Whiteley and others against Elizabeth Whiteley and another. On the death of plaintiff Elizabeth Whiteley, the case was revived in the name of James Whiteley, her executor, and James Whiteley and others, her devisees. Decree for complainants, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
M. V. & R. A. Montgomery (Charles F. Hammond, of counsel), for appellants.
Smith & Hood, for appellees.
LONG, J.
This bill was filed to set aside a deed made by Elizabeth Whiteley, deceased, The court below entered a decree setting the deed aside. Defendants appeal. The facts are set out in the opinion filed by the court below. We have read the record with care, and are satisfied that the circuit court was not in error in entering the decree in accordance with the prayer of the bill, and therefore adopt the opinion of that court as our own, as follows:
“This suit was commenced by Elizabeth Whiteley, the mother of John Whiteley and James Whiteley, against Elizabeth, the widow of John, and Nellie, his only child and heir at law. Its object is the cancellation of a certain deed made by the mother to John in his lifetime. The mother herself has died since the bill was filed, and the case stands revived, with her executor and devisees as present complainants. The old lady was owner of a farm in the country and certain real estate in the city. She also had a small amount of personal property. The country and city properties about equal each other in value. John and James were both of mature years, and were her only children. Her home was, and for a long time had been, with James, but she was in the habit of paying John occasional visits. It cannot be said, from the evidence, that she had, up to the time of the occurrence out of which this suit has grown, more affection for the one son than for the other. John was a man of quite large wealth, and James, I think, was in comfortable financial circumstances. In the early fall of the year 1890, the old lady met with a severe accident, shortly after which she executed a will. By the terms of this will the farm was to go to James, and the city and personal property to John, the latter to pay the former $1,500 in money to equalize the distribution. It is true that the propriety of drawing the will was suggested
[78 N.W. 1010]
to her by James, but it is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial