St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1884-04-11
ASHTON VS.. THOMPSON.
The Appeal Case Decided by the
Supreme Court in Favor Of
the Daughter.
The Decision Of the Lower Court At
frmed-Setting Aside the Convey
ances to the Mother.
The Latter Must Account for the Daughters
Full Share in Her Deceased Fathers
Estate.

Susan L. Thompson (Susan L. Thompson,
appellant), sustaining the decision OF the
Ramsey county district court from which
this case was appealed and which court with
with It's three judges on the bench refused to
grant new trial. AS the case is one which
has attracted no lite interest in ST. Paul on
account of the prominence Of the family in
terested and as the relation of parent to
child, child to parent and guardian and eX-
guardian toward one so thoroughly adjudica-
ted upon we deem the decision of sufficient
important to give an abstract Of the voumin-
Gus opinion Of the higher court which ac-
companies its thorough review of the case
In the opinion the following facts are CIV
en-: The plaintiff was born August 16, 1855,
and was married to Isaiah Ashton December,
1877. Her father, James E. Thompson,
died intestate May ~ 1870, and the probate
court distributed to the defendant, Lis widow
and plaintiffs mother, and to his other heirs,
on October 5, 1871, each one-ffth part Of his
real estate subject to defendants dover, and
One-sxth part of his personal property, which
were duly assigned to the plaintiff. The real
estate so assigned was valued at SO, 800, and
the personal property at s43, 900.
October 5, 1871, the widow and Horace
Thompson, a brother Of ]. E. Thompson,
vera appointed guardians Of plaintiffs, quail
flied and entered upon their duties, taking
Possession Of all the real and personal prop
erty assigned to Mrs. Ashton, and receiving
and discussing the income and profits of the
same.
October 1, 1876, the account of plaintiff
guardians was allowed in probate court, and
decree made assigning the property belong
ng to her in her guardians hands to her.
The guardians the same day gave her
q check payable to her order for
6,S42.25, and she endorsed and delivered
the check to her mother. The same day
plaintiff by four deeds conveyed all her
right and title in the real estate to her
mother, and gave her bill of sale Of all the
money, including the check alone mentioned,
and all the personal property belonging to
her and all moneys which should accrue
from the property. Plaintiff never had in
her actual possession or under her control
any part Of this real Of personal property or
the income thereof, save the momentary
possession Of the above check, until July 1,
1877.
No consideration was paid, or agreed to be
paid or intended to be paid the
plaintiff by the defendant, or
by anyone for this property conveyed and
transferred to the defendant, but the same
was 'tpurely and simply a gift'' from the
plaintiff to her mother. "and find as fact"
says the trial judge of the district court,
''that the plaintiff did not make said gift of
her own free will; that it was not her volun-
tary act, but that she was moved and in
duced thereto by the solicitations of her
mother and through her personal influence
which then was and always had been very
great over the plaintiff; and with
out fully understanding the charac-
ter and extent of the value of her property,
without due deliberation, without compre-
hending or realizing the fact that in execut-
ing said conyeyances she was divesting her
self of her entire estate, and without the
counsel or assistance of a DISTINGUISHED, indie
pendent advisor, and under the false impress
sion derived from an unsigned memoran-
DUN or draft of a will left by her father, and
in conversation with and statements made
by her mother that in executing such con-
veyances she was carrying out the wishes and
desires of her deceased father.n
These deeds were recorded with the bill of
sale and under them the mother took posses
sion of all the property, and collected and ap-
piled to her own use and benefit all the in
come therefrom, from October 1876 to July
l, 1877, as also the check Of sc, 1895.
In February, 1877, the plaintiff for the first
timer really became aware of the fact that she
had thus made an absolute gift to her mother
of her entire estate inherited from her father,
and being anxious to regain the same or a por-
ton thereof, she applied to Horace Thompson
and Bishop Whipple to counsel and assist
her in making a settlement with her mother,
and they asserting negotiations were entered
into which resulted in an agreement evil
denced by written instrument made June
&c, 1877, between plaintiff and three of0her
sisters Cwho occupied a position analogous to
that of PLAINTIFF, on the one side and their
mother on the other. By the terms of this
instrument the plaintiff was to surrender,
give and relinquish to the defendant
q considerable part (of the value
of several thousand dollars In addition to the
amount of the check of Sc, 1926, of the
share of her fathers estate. Subject to such
gift, surrender and REIMBURSEMENT, the
mother was to restore to plaintiff what she
had transferred to her by the transactions
of October, 1875
For the surrender, gift and REIMBURSEMENT
the trial court finds that tsNo consideration
whatever was paid or agreed to be paid" by
the defendant or others, except the defend
ants righteof dover in plaintiffs share Zone
undivided fifth parD of her fathers real es-
tate, which right of dover was of the value of
$4,000, and no more.
The trial court further found that when said
June 26, 1877, agreement was made that the
plaintiff was member of the family of
Susan L. Thompson, wholly dependent upon
her for support and under her habitual infu-
ence and control. That when plaintiff first
understood that she had Invested herself of
all her property and was wholly dependent
upon her mother for support, she became
very anxious that by some settlement it
should be wholly or in part reconveyedto her
and placed under her own
management and control. That
the said Susan L. Thompson was strongly
opposed to any such arrangement and de-
sired to retain and control said property
which fact was well known to plaintiff. That
such was the influence of the mother over
her, and her attitude towards her that the
plaintiff through fear of her displeasnre did
not personally make known to her, her de-
sire that the said property should be recon-
veyed to her, but rather applied to her uncle
and the said Whipple to aid her, and after
consultation with them and her three sisters,
the terms of said agreement were
settled upon and assented to. by
plaintiff, which agreement was
reduced to writing by the attorney of Jason