Case ID: wis_134/html/0071-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WiNsnow, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wanner and wife, Appellants, vs. Wanner and wife, Respondents.
    
      November 29
    
    December 13, 1907.
    
    
      Cancellation of instruments: Defaults of plaintiff: Personal care and, service: Belief.
    
    In an action in equity brought by aged persons to set aside a conveyance of tbeir homestead farm to their son in consideration of money payments and a bond for support involving the furnishing of board, fuel, and personal services, it appeared, among other things, and was also found by the court, that the plaintiffs first breached the contract and made it practically impossible for defendants to carry out their agreements. Held, that plaintiffs could not demand a rescission and could not complain of a judgment requiring defendants to render them annually a full cash equivalent for the board, fuel, and personal services provided in the bond.
    Appeal from a judgment of tlie circuit conrt for Shawano-county: John Goodlahd, Circuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    This is an action in equity brought by the plaintiffs, who are aged persons, to set aside a conveyance of their homestead farm made October 23, 1897, to the defendant Herman Warmer, their son, in consideration of the son’s notes for $1,000 and a bond for support in the penal sum of $1,000 secured by mortgage upon the land. The case was here before upon an appeal by the plaintiffs from a judgment denying rescission and holding that the plaintiffs’ only remedy was by enforcing the mortgage, and this court reversed the judgment and remanded the action for a new trial. Wanner v. Wannerj 115 Wis. 196, 91 U. W. 671. The case has been tried again before a referee, and from the judgment entered on confirmation of the referee’s report the plaintiffs again appeal. The terms of the bond for support and many other material facts are stated in the statement of the case upon the former appeal and need not be repeated here. The referee found, among other things, that the defendants had failed to comply with the conditions of the bond for support by failing to furnish the plaintiffs with table board and failing to make the annual cash payment of $30 since December 1, 1900, and that they were fully justified in refusing further to carry out the provisions of the bond. As conclusions of law the referee found that the plaintiffs were not entitled to cancellation of the deed, and that from and after the date of the judgment the defendants should pay the plaintiffs (in lieu of the annual payment of $30 cash and the furnishing of the board, personal services, and fuel) $200 in cash in quarterly instalments during the life of both plaintiffs, and to the survivor $125 in cash during survivorship; that the plaintiffs should have the free use of the kitchen and bedroom which they now occupy up to the death of the survivor; that the defendants should pay the reasonable burial expenses of both plaintiffs, and should also pay to the plaintiffs $563 within six months in lieu of the support and care which had not been furnished since December 1, 1900, as well as the $100 note due in the fall of 1905, which is the only remaining unpaid note of the purchase-money notes given by Herman at the time the conveyance was made. The referee also found that each party should pay his own costs and disbursements. The referee’s findings were confirmed, and judgment entered in accordance therewith.
    The cause was submitted for the appellants on briefs signed by H. G. Dreier and P. J. Winter, and for the respondents on a brief signed by M. J. Wallrich.> attorney, and Wallrich^ Dillett & Larson, counsel.
   WiNsnow, J.

The findings of the referee to the effect that the defendants were justified in refusing to furnish table board, care, and the annual cash payment after December 1, 1900, are vigorously attacked, but we find ourselves unable to say that they are against the clear preponderance of the evidence. The evidence shows that for more than two years after the making of the deed the parties lived in different portions of the same house fairly harmoniously, but that during the third year personal difficulties of a most serious nature commenced, and continued with ever increasing violence until the final break came in November, 1900. It would not be useful to attempt to state the testimony as to these difficulties in detail. It is a tale of insult, abuse, crim-ination, and personal violence upon both sides which is not pleasant to contemplate. Each party claimed that the responsibility for these deplorable family difficulties lay with the other, and the referee found, with ample evidence to support his conclusion, that it lay with the plaintiffs, and that a further continuance of any relations involving personal care or the furnishing of board was practically impossible. Having come to this conclusion, he determined that the personal relations and duties under the contract should cease, that the defendants should keep the farm, pay all sums that they had agreed to pay therefor in cash, render an equivalent in cash for all personal care and board which had been suspended after the difficulties culminated in open war, make payments of cash instead of board and services in the future, and pay the reasonable funeral expenses of the plaintiffs at death. It is objected that the court has made a new contract for the parties and that the court has no power to do such a thing. This might indeed be a serious objection were the defendants here appealing from the judgment, but they are not.

The question is, upon the plaintiffs’ appeal, whether the judgment does not give them as much as or more than they are entitled to. They first breached the contract. They made it practically impossible for the defendants to carry out their agreement to furnish board, fuel, and personal services. Plainly they could not demand rescission. It would be a serious question whether in this situation they had not forfeited their right to enforce the conditions of the bond as to board and personal service. Certainly they can have no ground for complaint when the court, in lieu of these conditions which they themselves have practically prevented the defendants from carrying out, adjudges that the defendants render to them annually what seems to be a full equivalent in cash. Notwithstanding their own default, they are to receive under the judgment all the money payments agreed on, besides a full money equivalent for the board, fuel, and personal services provided for in the bond. If they were entitled to any relief they were entitled to no greater relief than this.

By the Oowrt. — Judgment affirmed.