Wolpinger v. McFarland
| Decision Date | 20 April 1903 |
| Citation | 54 A. 862 |
| Parties | WOLPINGER v. McFARLAND et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Bill by Irwin P. Wolfinger against Dora McFarland and others. Bill dismissed.
The bill of complaint in this cause is filed by Irwin P. Wolfinger to enforce the specific performance of a contract which it is alleged one William McFarland made in his lifetime with the complainant, to convey a foundry property and its equipment, situate in Trenton, N. J., to the complainant, together with an accounting for the profits of the foundry business since the death of McFarland. The defendants are the widow of McFarland, who is executrix and sole devisee in his will, the next of kin and heirs of McFarland, and also Ellis R. Meeker, a lessee, who since the death of McFarland has received a lease of the premises in question.
The bill alleges that in 1886 McFarland was carrying on the foundry business, and had the complainant in his employ as a molder, paying him as wages $15 per week, and that McFarland then agreed with the complainant that, if the latter would remain in his employ, he "would pay to the complainant the wages he was then receiving, and would increase them from time to time as he might be able, and at his death would give his foundry business, with all tools, machinery, appliances, appurtenances, and everything belonging thereto or used in connection therewith, to the complainant, absolutely." The bill alleges that afterwards McFarland moved his foundry to another site, at the corner of Breunig avenue and Mead streets (described by metes and bounds in the bill), and that the agreement between the complainant and McFarland was renewed—that, in consideration that the complainant would serve the best interest of McFarland in the foundry business as long as he should live, he (McFarland) would convey to the complainant the Breunig avenue and Mead street foundry lot, and its equipment, in addition to any other compensation which he might receive. The bill alleges performance by the complainant of his part of his contract. The bill admits that the complainant received from McParland constantly increasing compensation as wages for his services; that in 1886 it was $16 per week, in 1887 $18 per week, in 1889 $20 per week, and from 1898 to the time of McFarlaud's death, on December 23, 1900, at the rate of $25 per week. The bill further alleges that in August, 1899, McFarland executed a will devising the foundry property and its equipment to the complainant "in recognition of his faithful services in the past and care for my interest." On December 8, 1900, McFarland executed his last will, and the bill alleges that, through undue influence or fraud, he attempted to give the foundry property to his widow, Dora McFarland; that this will was proven before the surrogate of Mercer county on January 9, 1901, and letters testamentary thereon were issued to the defendant Dora McFarland, as executrix thereof, and that the widow, Dora McFarland, was informed of the alleged contract between the complainant and McFarland; that after McFarland's death the complainant was greatly surprised and disappointed on learning the contents of the will, and, being without any position by which to earn a living, the complainant on or about the 14th day of January, 1901, entered into an agreement with the defendant Dora McFarland to manage and operate the foundry for five years at a salary of $1,800 per year; that on April 15, 1901, Mrs. McFarland leased the premises to the defendant Ellis R. Meeker for the term of five years, and put Meeker into possession on the following day, against the complainant's protest, and that Meeker took his lease with full knowledge of the complainant's right under the alleged contract; that the complainant has demanded from the devisee and next of kin and heirs of McFarland that they convey the premises in question to him in performance of the contract entered into by McFarland in his lifetime, and that they have refused to make such a conveyance; that he is ready to release Mrs. McFarland from any obligation to employ him under the contract dated January 14, 1901, and return to her all moneys paid him by her, upon terms that Mrs. McFarland and Meeker shall account to the complainant for the profits of the foundry business since McFarland's death. The bill prays that the defendants may be decreed specifically to perform the agreement between the complainant and McFarland, by conveying to the complainant the foundry property and its equipment; that the lease to Meeker may be canceled; that McFarland and Meeker may account for the profits of the business since the death of McFarland; that Mrs. McFarland and Meeker may be enjoined from disposing of the property; and for further relief, etc.
A decree pro confesso has been taken against all of the defendants who are heirs and next of kin of the decedent, McFarland. They appear to have no interest in the suit, unless the will should for some reason be declared invalid:
The defendant Dora McFarland, who is the widow of the decedent McFarland, the executrix of his last will, and the sole devisee of the property in question, files an answer to the bill of complaint, denying that McFarland ever made the contract set forth in the bill. She admits that the complainant was in the defendant's employ, and in the receipt of wages for services rendered, and that he continued in the service of McFarland to the time of his death, but she denies that the complainant's services were rendered in pursuance of any such agreement as is set forth in the bill. On the contrary, she insists that the wages received by complainant were in full compensation for the work and services by him done and rendered to McFarland. She leaves the complainant to the proof of his allegation that the decedent in August, 1899, made a will devising the foundry property in recognition of his faithful services. The defendant Dora McFarland further admits that the decedent, William McFarland. on the 8th of December, 1900, made his last will, devising and bequeathing his real and personal property to the defendant Dora McFarland, which will she duly proved on January 9, 1901, before the surrogate of Mercer county, and that on January 14, 1901, the complainant entered into the written agreement named in the bill. She alleges that by that contract the complainant undertook to act for her as manager of the foundry business for the period of five years from January 14, 1901, at a salary of $l,800 per year; that, with full knowledge of the decedent's will, dated December 8, 1900, devising the foundry business to her, the complainant thus recognized her as the owner of the foundry and business, and entered into her service as such owner, and conducted and carried on the foundry business for her until April 17, 1901, receiving wages at the agreed rate named in the contract; that at the last-named date the defendant leased the foundry to Ellis R. Meeker, agreeing with him (Meeker) for the taking over of all contracts by him relating to the business, with the option to purchase the premises. The answer of the defendant Dora McFarland sets forth the substance of the agreement between her and Meeker, and particularly this clause: "And this indenture also witnesseth, that for the consideration hereinbefore expressed the said party of the second part shall and will continue in his employment one Irwin P. Wolfinger, mentioned in a certain writing, dated January 14th, 1901, purporting to be an agreement of hiring between the said party of the first part and the said Irwin P. Wolfinger, subject to the terms thereof (a copy of which the said party of the second part has already seen), until the expiration of the term of service therein in that behalf provided." The defendant Dora McFarland further alleges that this agreement was exhibited to the complainant, and that he then availed himself of the benefit of it by entering into Meeker's service, to manage for him the foundry and business, in the same capacity and on the same terms as the complainant had agreed to work for the defendant Dora McFarland by the contract of January 14, 1901, and that the complainant continued to work for Meeker, managing said foundry business for him, up to May 13, 1901, the date of the filing of complainant's bill. The defendant Dora McFarland insists that the complainant, by his making the contract of January 14, 1901, to carry on the foundry business for five years as her manager of that business, and by his entering into the service of the defendant Meeker in the same capacity on the same terms, has waived and abandoned any rights, if any he ever had, under the supposed contract with the decedent which the complainant sets up in his bill, and which he now seeks to have specifically performed under a decree in this cause. The defendant Dora McFarland denies the right of the complainant to any relief in equity, and prays the same benefit as if she had demurred to the bill of complaint.
The defendant Ellis R. Meeker also answers the bill of complaint. He denies all knowledge of the alleged contract with the decedent, McFarland, which the complainant seeks to have specifically performed, referred to in the bill, and charges that there never was, in fact, any such agreement. He admits the ownership of the foundry by the decedent, his death, and that his will devises the foundry and its equipment to his widow, the defendant Dora McFarland. He alleges that the complainant, after he had knowledge of the decedent's death, and that by his will he had given the foundry and business to the widow, contracted with her to manage it for her for five years at an annual salary of $1,800; that, learning this, and that the will had been proven, the defendant Meeker on April 17, 1901, leased the foundry and business from Mrs. McFarland at an annual rental of $3,000, and agreed to continue to employ the complainant according to the terms of...
To continue reading
Request your trial