Young v. Young

• Decision Date: 22 September 1893
• Citation: 27 A. 627,51 N.J.E. 491
• Parties: YOUNG et al. v. YOUNG et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

27 A. 627

51 N.J.E. 491

YOUNG et al.

v. YOUNG et al.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Sept. 22, 1893.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Bill for specific performance of a land contract by Huldah B. Young, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Jacob Young, deceased, and Dorothea McCord, against Henry Young and others. Heard on pleadings and proofs. Conditional decree.

William H. Morrow and Louis H. Schenck, for complainants.

Gilbert Collins and George M. Shipman, for defendants.

PITNEY, V. C. This is a suit for specific performance. The allegations of the bill, as originally filed, are set out fully in the previous report of the case, found in 45 N. J. Eq. 27, 16 Atl. Rep. 921. They are, in brief, that Jacob Young, the husband of Mrs. Young and the father of Mrs. McCord, was the son of one Henry Young, and that Henry Young was the owner of a farm in Warren county, and that in 1849 he placed his son Jacob upon it, and told him that he should live upon it as long as he (the father) lived, and that he (Jacob) might make any improvements upon it he chose, and that he (Henry) would either will or deed it to him (Jacob) at his (Henry's) death; that Jacob in his lifetime, relying on this promise, made extensive and permanent improvements upon the farm at his own expense, with the knowledge and acquiescence of his father; that he died shortly before his father, and that his father failed to perform his promise, but in his lifetime, and after Jacob's death, made a voluntary conveyance of it to his two other sons,—Peter and William,—defendants herein, and also devised it to them by will. The equity of the case is that Jacob, in good faith and reliance upon his father's promise to give him the farm, expended his moneys in permanent improvements on the farm, so that it would work a fraud on the complainants, Dorothea Mc Cord, the heir at law, and Huldah B. Young, the widow of Jacob, to permit the father and his two grantees and devisees, Peter and William Young, to refuse to perform the promise in question. After the demurrer to the bill as originally filed had been sustained, as reported, the complainants amended their bill by adding the personal representatives of Jacob Young, viz. Huldah B. Young, administratrix, as complainant, and Silas W. De Witt, administrator with her, as defendant, he declining to join as complainant. No answer was filed by De Witt. Complainants further amended by adding allegations in excuse of their laches in filing their bill, and the chancellor, after hearing counsel, held these allegations sufficient, and ordered the defendants to answer, which Peter and William Young have done, and the cause has been brought to hearing on the pleadings and proofs. The additional allegations found in the amendment are to the effect that shortly after the judgment in ejectment rendered in September, 1877, against the complainants in the Warren circuit in favor of the defendants referred to in the original bill, Mrs. Young consulted Mr. Sitgreaves, a solicitor of this court practicing at Phillipsburg, as to what further proceedings should be taken in behalf of the complainants with regard to recovering this land, and that he suggested that the parties should secure the advice and services of the late Mr. Vanatta, then practicing at Morristown; that Mrs. Young saw Mr. Vanatta, stated her case to him, and that he suggested that the facts should be got together in a proper manner by Mr. Sitgreaves, and submitted to him for further advice; that Sitgreaves undertook the work of collating the facts, but was taken sick and remained ill for some time, and died in March, 1878; that, after his death, Mrs. Young again consulted with Mr. Vanatta, and was by him advised to employ other local counsel, to wit, Mr. Dumont, of Phillipsburg, and that Mr. Dumunt was retained and relied upon; and that Mr. Vanatta died in April, 1879, and Mr. Dumont became ill and incapacitated, and did nothing. The bill further alleges that other suits and litigations arose between the parties, to wit, two suits were brought in the Warren circuit court against the defendants by Mrs. McCord,—one for false imprisonment, and the other for assault and battery,—and that these causes were subsequently tried, and verdicts rendered for the plaintiffs, and that further litigation ensued in the shape of rules to show cause and new trials, and the last of those causes was finally disposed of in April, 1884; further, that in 1881 complainants consulted other counsel as to their rights in the premises, and were advised by him that they should bring a suit at law, in the name of the administrator of Jacob Young, against the executors of Henry Young, for the value of the improvements placed on the farm, and that such suit was brought in October, 1881; that a demurrer was filed to one of the pleadings, and that it was brought to hearing and de cided in the year 1883 adversely to the plaintiffs; and the bill refers to the report of that case, viz. Young v. Young, 45 N. J. Law, 197. The bill further alleges that the complainants were advised by counsel that pending the progress of these various suits in the supreme court and in the Warren circuit court they should not press their suit for specific performance. The bill further alleges that in the year 1883 the complainants retained a certain counsel to do whatever was necessary to compel specific performance of the promise of Henry Young, and paid him for his services, and that that counsel frequently promised to commence the suit, but that in 1884 they discovered that he had neglected to do anything in the matter, and thereupon they sought the advice of other counsel, to wit, the one at present engaged for them, and finally succeeded in inducing him to proceed with the cause. Most of the allegations of the bill as amended are denied by the answer, and it sets up, in addition, that Jacob Young died insolvent, and that Henry Young was his security on a note for about $1,300 held by one Shoemaker, which Henry Young was obliged to pay; that by his will, dated April 12, 1870, made eight days after the death of Jacob, he left a legacy of $3,000 to the complainant Dorothea McCord, and that she had claimed and received payment of that legacy. The answer also sets up as a bar the sworn claim against the estate of Henry Young by Mrs. Young as administratrix for $3,276, being the cost of the various improvements put upon the farm by her husband in his lifetime, and which was the foundation of the suit in the supreme court before referred to; and it also sets up the insolvency proceedings in the settlement of the estate of Jacob Young in the Warren orphans' court, including an application to sell the lands of Jacob Young to pay his debts, with a schedule of those lands, which does not include the farm in question.

1. The first question is whether or not the excuse set up for the laches in bringing this suit was substantially proven at the hearing, and I come to the conclusion that it was so proven. It was shown that Mrs. Young and her daughter retained possession of the house in which the husband and father lived and was murdered, and that they attempted to get possession of the outbuildings. The result was that an action of trespass was commenced by Peter and William against them, or one of them, in the month of June, 1876, in the lifetime of Henry Young, the father. This suit was not pursued. Henry Young died in January, 1877, and shortly afterwards another action of trespass was brought by Peter and William against the complainant, and also an action of ejectment. That suit they defended on the ground of adverse possession for more than 20 years by Jacob Young, whose estate at his death descended to the daughter, Dorothea, subject to the dower of the wife, Huldah. They failed in their defense by reason of proof offered at the trial that Jacob Young paid full rent annually to his father up to the day of his death. Shortly after that verdict was rendered they were turned out of possession; but they did not give up their claim to the farm, but looked for a new remedy. About that time they casually met Atty. (Jen. Stockton, who was attending the Warren circuit in the prosecution of the famous Freeholders' Conspiracy Cases, and he advised them that their remedy was by a bill in chancery. They then called upon Mr. Sitgreaves, as alleged in the bill, and he advised them to secure the advice and services of Mr. Vanatta, and then they came to Morristown, and saw him there, and also called upon him in New York. He advised them to continue the employment of Mr. Sitgreaves as local attorney to see the witnesses, get a statement of what they knew, and generally to get such a statement as counsel could give his opinion upon and advice about They relied upon Mr. Sitgreaves, but his illness and death, and the death of Mr. Vanatta, drove them to seek other counsel. In October, 1878, they also retained and paid Mr. Dumont, of Phillipsburg, to bring a chancery suit, but he fell ill, and did nothing. They then employed Mr. Lott, a young member of the Belvidere bar, to bring the actions in tort which were brought. They also called upon the elder Mr. Gummere at Trenton, laid their case before him, and he advised them to go to his son, who was then practicing in Newark. They went to him, and he advised an action at law, such as was brought and carried through successfully in Smith v. Smith, 28 N. J. Law, 208. Acting under his advice, the sworn claim was put in against the executors of Henry Young, and the action brought, with the result as reported in Young v. Young, 45 N. J. Law, 197. In the mean time it also appears that there was considerable litigation in the orphans' court of Warren county over a large claim presented against the estate of Jacob Young, which went to the prerogative court and is reported in Young v. Young, 32 N. J. Eq. 275. The action at law brought by the younger Mr. Gummere, which was decided at June...