Case ID: howell-np_1/html/0136-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wayne Circuit.
    
    SARAH B. RICKABUS, Proponent of the Will of William Buck, Deceased, vs. JOHN F. GOTT, Contestant.
    
    
      Brief History of the Case — Detract from the closing Argument of Judge Marston to the Jury.
    
    One of the most interesting cases tried for years in the courts of Wayne county is the Buck will case.
    William Buck, a native of England, in 1845 purchased of Philip H. Martz and George Laforge 210 acres of land in Grosse Point, being private claim 391, which is one of the old French farms, three acres wide, fronting on the Detroit river and running back to the Mack road. The Buck brick residence on Jefferson avenue still stands, and is occupied by Buck’s nephew, John F. Gott, the contestant of Buck’s will.
    In 1862 or 1863 (the witnesses are clear that it was during the war) Mr. Buck made a will, by which he gave 40 acres of P. C. 391 to Sarah Buck Cordy, now Rickabus, and the remaining portion of his property to Elizabeth Buck, his wife.
    Alexander Michie, present county auditor, drafted the will, and he and Peter N. Ellair and Geo. Martin duly witnessed it.
    About November, 1873,t Mr. Buck told Mr. Michie that he wanted to add a codicil to his will so as to bequeath some money or town bonds in a way the will did not mention. About three weeks before Buck’s death, which occurred on November 24, 1874, the conversation of a year previous as to a codicil was resumed, but he died before any codicil was executed.
    Mrs. Bickabus was defeated in the probate court in 1880. She gained a verdict in the circuit in 1881. But a new trial was granted which resulted in April, 1882, in a verdict for contestant.
    Proponent took the case to the Supreme Court, which reversed the judgment of the circuit, and granted a new trial. (51 Mich.)
    The case came on for the third trial in the Wayne circuit in February, 1884. On this trial the jury disagreed.
    It was reported that they agreed that proponent had proved a will that gave her forty acres of the Grosse Point farm. They stood ten to two in favor of the whole will as set forth in proponent’s petition.
    On the trial it appeared that Mrs. Bickabus, when about seven years of age, went to live with the testator, and that she worked for him continuously from that time until she was married, a period of about fifteen years. That she did the work in the house, milked cows and took care of horses, cut -wood, and received therefor only her clothing and a few months’ schooling; that she took the testator’s surname, was married in his house, and that after marriage she and her first child had worked for testator without receiving any compensation therefor.
    
      The contestant’s counsel, in argument urged that the testator had destroyed the will because he was angry at the proponent on account of her first child having been born three months after her marriage; and because at another time, while the child, then eight or nine years old, was working for him, he had punished the boy, which caused ill feeling between testator and the boy’s mother.
    It also appeared that the contestant had been but seldom at the testator’s house, and had never done any work for testator, except one-half day in digging ditches.
    The reference to, and argument by contestant’s counsel as to, the birth of a child as already seated, as a cause of revoking the will, brought from Judge Marston the following reply:
    JUDGE MARSTON’S ARGUMENT.
    It is then clear, beyond controversy, that a will was executed in 1862 or 1863, giving the wife of the testator all his real and personal property except forty acres of the old farm in Grosse Point that was given to proponent.
    But counsel have here urged that this will was revoked, and that the cause of such revocation was the' disgrace brought upon the testator by the birth of proponent’s “first-born” three months after her marriage. That testator thereupon, to punish her, revoked his will, thus leaving his property to descend to contestant. Is this true? Even if a child was born as stated, was the will revoked on account thereof ? Was her offense one that could not be forgiven? Were the long years of faithful labor bestowed to be forgotten and remain unrewarded ?
    When a young girl, the proponent had entered the testator’s house, become a member of his family, taken his name, and for long years had toiled and labored for his comfort and his benefit. She denied to herself the advantages which a common school education would have given her, in order to minister to the wants of the testator and his wife.
    Could a life of faithful service thus rendered be forgotten in a moment, and the slight provision made for her be wiped out in order that one who had labored not might receive the reward?
    Was her offense alone remembered, or did the old man read and observe the lesson taught him by his Divine Master — his Redeemer — before whom he expected to appear and render an account of his stewardship ?
    “ While He sat at meat, a woman in the city, a sinner, when she knew He was at meat in the Pharisee’s house, brought a box of ointment, and stood at His feet weeping, and began to wash His feet Avith her tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed His feet and anointed them with ointment. And when the Pharisee questioned this, he Avas rebuked, and it Avas said unto him, ‘ See’st thou this woman. I entered into thine house; thou gavest me no Avater for my feet; but-she hath Avashed my feet Avith tears, and Aviped them with the hairs of her head. Thou gavest me no kiss, but this woman, since the time I came in, hath not ceased to kiss my feet. Mine head with oil thou didst not anoint; but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment. Wherefore I say unto her, thy sins which are many, are forgiven.’ ”
    What had this contestant done that he should become the object of the old man’s bounty? He had entered into his house, but not to labor, while this woman and her first-born, since they entered his house, had ceased not to toil for him; and can you doubt but that her sin was forgiven her, and the bequest to her permitted to stand?
    
      G. B. Hoivell, W. F. Atkinson and I. Marston for Proponent.
    
      B. T. and Geo. H. Prentiss for Contestant.