Whiteley v. Whiteley

• Decision Date: 18 April 1899
• Citation: 78 N.W. 1009,120 Mich. 30
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: WHITELEY ET AL. v. WHITELEY ET AL.

78 N.W. 1009

120 Mich. 30

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 &amp 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 to her by James, but it is not shown that he in any way suggested or helped to determine the provisions it should contain. On the whole, these seem to have been strictly in accordance with a purpose the mother had long held, and sometimes expressed to her friends, of retaining all the property under her own control so long as she might live, and then dividing it equally between the two sons. John soon heard of this will, and, being unable, as it seems, to discover what it contained, became strongly possessed with the idea that he had been unfairly dealt with in the disposition of the property. In consequence of this, he deliberately set about to secure from his mother such a conveyance in his own behalf as should be satisfactory to himself. With this object in view, his first care was to have the mother brought, from the house where she lived with James, to his own house, where no relative except members of his own immediate family should be near her. What took place when this had been accomplished we do not know, for both the mother and John were dead when the testimony was taken; but presently, and within a few weeks after making the will, she was induced in some way to sign the deed in question. Whatever the representations made to her were, it is clear that the deed was obtained without consultation on her part with other relatives, or even with a disinterested friend. No outsider listened to a word of the negotiations, and the notary, called in by John, was the only person present when the instrument was executed. *** If there was any consideration for the deed so made, which I doubt, it was so disproportionate to the value of the property described that the transaction, at the best, was no more than a gift. This deed was at once recorded by John, but no further information as to its existence was given to any of the old lady's friends. She went on controlling the property, calling it her own, and paying taxes on it, as though no conveyance had been made. This state of affairs continued nearly two years, until the record of the

...