New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-11-16

mutuhlF In ,tbout first complying with the con
uon SET ioIn ~ 'p alleged that the respective wills
1r.d be exchanged, ana me aikunu' rc fnliv per
i ,,.i,y rothiug eNccutory except tho itEato
firuaf ion That neither sLohd iuhu 'i ct'. will
% IND, ',,oe views are Submitted 10y the ieSlv %
IN 0.u;ct 10 every material ele'hcll " ,iu tr made
tc Tcy deny that any such con tr 'et was odd Tor
i those parties OF that any su' motive aiiiCd in
maxim on tho part OF ne SUI ,,t nestiop the
The bin OF complaint Although tlf3 ,,o ro they DENY
,ue1ess of Tie viii NJ the conplnuah st ~ o,es,
I'm the most positive terms that ~ VIZ h Wfetime ever
o ,sd The compainant in consideration tiJ sne Nouiu
romply with that request that seJ we SOFA
would make her viii aud devise nr,,rr,oi9"nt
mr. anv mart thereof to tho cOmIialn9SSn1
or that the parties ever mentally agrSeu Nh, grst CIV
that neither would make another VIII without niy IA
inc notice TO tho 9th er ana returning the otheI w
before explained. Concession IS ais3 naue uS de-
sribed i'm the bill Of complaint as the VIII Oh tlo S
Sylvia Ann dated January H. loo5 IS EenI eecoud
they explicitly deny that the paper ca llcu t befnre
noge of the will was attached TO that nsrumen! 10
II Was signed or that it was ever any part G S
strument On the contrary they uehJ va" h"t tis
signed by the said Sylvia Ann, ana INSIST lnat IL y
forgery Much testimony was taken ulon tst lso
the parties 20 the suit ana the ulscuSsion Va t nal
lions growing OF II occupied several days at the &
hearing Some OF the questions discussed were no" ans as
il must be admitted that tney are hshy Ihl tbe con.
affecting the rules OF evidence In cases where no
uncness Of written instruments Is IN
nasmuch as It does not become necessary 70 , nt
rheher tho paper Is or is not genuine the Court nv
inclined 10 decide those question IN thi5 0' tSc
Viewed tn in SSey ee s%h anu the evidence fs
altogether IN the opinion Of the Court 10 prove 'ne
suclI contract was made by those parties as is ackr
Nobng of the kind can be reasonably inferred from te
admissions OF the answer Iaken III thelr "Ir ~, en-
me conversations therein reced 90 not wal an ,
cson that the party represented as speaking suppose
or Intended to admit that she had ever enteIe l'u
LEGAL obligation not to make Will or that sue nu lie
NV contract whatever with the complainant Mllhh 'ho
local meaning u that word, much less any suo ~ ~
ms that set forth the foundation OF ms SUIT d
,t ~ tbe first conversation. rcctd In the DIi HIu
6uswcr. is that she preferred not 10 nahc - ,
could help it. she had been Obliged 70 promise tnp
on,uapt that she would not do without lettus hl
know 1T: but she characterized the promise ~ mi
The second conversation ana hnhlly salu 10 tho -,
that She was forced make the promise 10 gtI lu VI
slant importantly such remarks IN leghiu ~ 81. -
relative are quito too loose aud INDEFINITE 10 oo
a. evidence of any legal obligation, especially as ey uV
not contain the slightest iutimauon OF any nuus %
ise or of any other consideration recohulAeu III 'o 10"
Apart from the differences II any, which may be drawn
from he Wills in question. there's no evidence III the eso
maj the complainant made her will at the request o o
aunt OF that the ant, IN consideration Ol CunPIat
that she would make her will and devise her estate OF
any part thereof to the complainant nor lnt ms &
ties ever mutually agreed to exchange N,iiS' ao i, V
neither would make another will without nrst notllns
the other aud returning the others Will Ih.se M
allegations combined constitute inc louhudtIVh vi o
coupainants case and II they are not proved hc SUPER
structure must fall suppose consideration Ior lc ~,
legged promise OF the deCedent That inc comp III
c0mpauce with the request OF her aunt made her o"
will deysug her estate IN way 10 eAcluuo NJ ",l,'
from ali benefit under II, and the proposition u nat hs
inc framed and executed heT Will as requested, on
the faith OF her auuts promise that II s.', VIZ Wy
complanapt would do so, the aunt would make heI wiz
oUd 1evise her estate 10 the complainant the promise
Of the aunt valid and obligatory, as iulhhB "tHH l'
class OF contracts constituted 10y promise OF Representa-
on made by one person and done by another on the
faith Of such promise or Representations bly ~ 'l.
peri sec 1871 Equity undoubtedly acknowledges tHe
mile maj representation made by one party for the Pnt
pose Of Influencing the conduct OF INC otheI pal? WIZ
I'm general be sufficient % cnue thal oihcr parry 10 SUI
stal relief iu ease he she thereby Induced 10 hct
upon u, and II appears that the j. 49,
Mlnsel agt White, II. L. Cas-, 1000 Huch pio,N,-ts
representations hoWeHeI, mus no i!o,y%a ~ not
party who alleges tat they were ihhue anu a. ~
proved his bin Of complaint VIII be- dismissed nc re-
slOudcuts deny that lhe rue susstsi,u Aa' aNl
ton the case, aud insist that thc ,.' ~
proved as alleged. is void ms ueu-t pubhc lrc}i nt
tho view taken oi Tie case lt Us lol h'. ~
that point, a. The Couii 10 oil lht opN.o" 9' 80 ~ %
is Iot proved The views ~ the cuulalhait hi.o "I
that tie two Wills set form III Tue pm Oh Oolnl'n
Doe gdrdod as mutual WIS ana Idl '!,'-o i's.'
together with the testimony dctcIbuE tht g.
attending the finding OF tue Wlii OF tho 'oul
after her deceasc afford sufficient evidence 0 support
the material alterations oi W., Dl.. o' i, may
cntle the complainant !" a 1',t'U, ,. ,I-.t,"J
well be made that mutual wills, a. uudrln'ovvl
In legal decisions, afford evidence Of contract ~ ihe
respective tcsators each with the ether more on ICES
strong IN view Of the surrounding crcrm. aLct-' thh
cue or seas0u1De loll,l io 'o ullOl.v ~ t. a., 80
insupcrabe dihiculty 30 the complainant ,l-e ~ i".
any baoper ss, ~ , ~ CONF Where tSo asrec
III ,t, ti,e cher "a mako mutual wills aud both
cute the ngroemcni It Il held that neither csn properly
revoke Ls VIII without giving notice 90 tho other 90. turh
revocation Death ~ ono 81 the parties Do slch case
carries bis part Of The contract INTO eAecu' ana t1.
bcttor opinion perhaps D. tltt tho 't"'i ll3' "..'
that event, u the artc'm mont was d'hnig ara
satisfactory cannot Tr.,tI Ur '".i4, = ''ti''I
u-t. roreira, DICT ch. l.. 4i'i H.if JLi'l.
Aug, 212J Both VILE. 10 o. agreed, oven ~ %
case where IN aeIecment between ile Itspe. i've
e.tatois is freely proved ere 'i n ie nHIui, ie'.c
able, bat the doctrine BE- tat ttc plt's -fe under ic
wills 80 as 20 secure any undue ndfAIi ~. l"NIt NY
the agreement maintain good ilih each to TOO oi.'
tie Icuson 5 that neither can REVOKE "ih'u, tNt
due aud saasonaulc notice ,Louu- agl MAUI ~ J." EI.
L s. 80 Ii..Dy ast I-l s., u i-w IIu... n r. tI ic"
and those nearly equally divided iDr asa against tho
doctrine cycn whcnIt appears at u', ufl ttntii ""s
contract to mako mutual wills % orc az th' parties nh-
d,s is ifv 10 be- sTccifc C1,titcd y Tho ,ur-
wing pa4 70 DE ha. enjoyed Ono benefit 81 The Wil ~
, The ot sa,s sGl H. HI G ssc peroE.
enter INTO FAIR and definite agreement % lcale
each other sums o money or" iue by ihcr WI, W.,
property a. each for r bcn'hi al te survivor 'Nit OF
Equity Gays Roper Wlll enforce performance ui e9'h
agrcen't utoptt o." l"b' 60 vi, ~ 80 49,
Williams ENr-. loi) These Huhoutns are cited TO show
agreement made ny ne parties Nohpricni evidence o
any such agreement iu this cu,e is entirely wanting. aud
there nothing the face 81 the -tum, nts % vibrant
any such conclusion. ihey were executed hl uHcirnt
times and the complainant dcN-cs nothing 10 TIE hild
tie complainant was drawn uuder ~" secni dlIt'loh
the aunt, but the aFclnCut ID denied ~ the answer
and - wholly unsustarcd by competent proof Ref
erence n also made 10 te PAPER called the second pteo
the Will but there no proof n the case 70 show that no
VIII ~ qutsus htl"lc INC WIZ was Hth'u hhu cA'Curu
Special reference Is also made 10 the crcumstaucc attend
the nuIlug the TWO tNtulft Win lhflI l'lurhtS
IN the trunk Of the esatN after her dCcoa'e satsfnc
tory proofs are exhibited that these envelopes
handed BY the complainant 10 the tcstauN her life
time but there evidence that tho latter had any
knowledge Whatever 81 their contents. Subsequent
10 their beng deposited iu the trunk che made
aud executed her last viii and testament, and
there H. no reason appearing In tho record
10 suppose that she suspected that those envelopes
contained ythug TO show that IN doing he yiO
ating the OF any such contract as that alleged In
the bin ~ complaint. They deposited there by
female Attendant OF the said Sylvia Ann pursuant to her
dccton but at the request aud Ia the presence OF the
t,Ilt ted A
they remained there, for aug that appears 20 the
traTy iii they found by the compainan under the
dot IA nrOOfs fuuutry