St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1884-04-11

mother, and the unsigned memorandum
left by her father that she should not have
the possession of the whole of her said prop
erty, and in the hope of creating pleasant
feelings between her mother and herself,
and through her extreme anxiety that some
settlement should be made that she might to
some extent be pecuniarily in
dependent, and through apprehen
sion that unless some settlement
was at that time effected she would never re-
gain he rights, she accepted said agreement
and settlement, and consented to the con-
cessions in favor of her mother hastily, with
out legal advice, and without knowledge or
information of the value, amount, dividends,
rents, ETC., of the property which she thereby
released, relinquished and conveyed to her
mother, and without thought or question
whether she was or was not receiving all her
rights to which she was by law entitled as the
heir of her deceased father"
1t was further found by the trial court
that said Horace Thompson and Bishop
Whipple, nor Susan B. Thompson did not in
any manner or extent whatever instruct
counsel or advise the plaintiff as to her
rights or as to the extent or value of her said
property, income, rents, ETC., by said agree
ment she relinquished to her mother, and
that she received no such instruction from
them or any other person, and did not have
the benefit of an independent adviser in
said settlement''
The terms of the June 90, 1877, agreement
were carried out August "a Of the same year
by conYeyances and transfers on both sides,
without further consideration, to the plaintiff.
The defendant left the United States and
went abroad. and did not return until June
30 1879. This action was commenced July
1879. So far as deemed important on this
appeal the above is the substance of the
findings of fact In our opinion they are
sustained by competent evidence, reasonably
tending to support them, with the exception
Of that given by the defendant herself, the
testimony being oral.
The case was one calculated to arouse con-
siderable feeling in the family of which most
Of the witnesses were members, and al
though the evidence was conflicting, the
learned and experienced trial judge was in
position to arrive at the facts far superior to
the higher court, which can look only at the
printed record. Besides motion for a new
trial on the ground that the findings of fact
were not justified by the evidence was heard
before the judges of the district court for
Ramsey county sittingin bench and denied. In
these circumstances 1t would require far
stronger case than is presented here to in
duce US to disturb a finding as against evil
dence.
The conclusions of law found by the trial
court are that as against plaintiff the origi-
nal conveyances and subsequent agreement
are null and void, and that the plaintiff is
entitled to an accounting by the defendant
Of all the income, dividends, issues, rents
and profits from all the property, and for all
moneys made over by check or paid to her
by plaintiff, and for plaintiffs inter-
est in household furniture and
other personal property conveyed under the
agreement Of Aug. "a, 1877, accrediting to
Judgment of the lower court was virtually
each Oct II. 1876, after the decree of the
probate court assigning to plaintiff her share
in her deceased fathers estate.
The supreme court sustains the decision
of the lower court in this case, and holds in
conclusion that the case lies in compare
lively narrow compass and is to
be determined by the applica-
ton of few well settled
points in equity which it proceeds to give at
length in a syllabus to be found in the court
VI lpoUC VI GuC
GLOBE.
In this case the court further held that the
daughter and ward was thoroughly welded
by the mother, and that she made the 'agree-
ment" through fear of becoming totally de-
pendant on the mother, who for grossly in
adequate consideration obtained through
gift considerable proportion of the property
of her child ward. This 'agreementn was
brought about solely by the mother, for her
own personal advantage and with no consid-
Grafton for the child, and the property OBJ
tanned by it she cannot be permitted to re-
tain. If the child had had the benefit
of competent advice when she made the
agreement it would have not altered the
caee in equity, she being under the dominion
of her mother at the time.
In conclusion the court quoted from high
English authority, viz ''The crucial
question is not whether she knew what she
was doing, had done or proposed to do, but
how the intention was produced, whether that
all that care and prudence was placed around
her as against those who advised her, which
from their situation or relation with respect
to her they we're bound to exert in her be-
half"