New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-12-11
MR. LIVINGSTON SUED BY HIS MOTHER
THE DISAGREEMENT Is ABOUT Died AND AN
ANNUITY.

THE DISAGREEMENT Is ABOUT DEED AND AN
ANNUITY.
One of the suits on the calendar Of the Supreme
Court which is likely to be reached early next week
viii attract much interest in society in this city be
cause of the prominence of the people involved. III
Is an action brought by Mrs Mary e. Livingston
against her SOD Philip L. Livingston, his wife Juliet
~ Livingston. and Edward L. Short. TO recover prop
err decided by her TO her shortly after his mar
rage in April. 1890 The complaint alleges that the
sn oou after his return from his bridal tour, began 10
mporune his mother TO transfer her property TO him.
and so annoyed and worried her that she nnauy DE-
came sick and nervous and eventually signed the deeds
he requested. 1t further charges that ne was ~
fuenced in his action by his wife. who who was
daughter of william 4. Morris, and by member oil
her family After she had signed the deeds In ques-
ton. Mrs Livingston changed her mind in regard to
The transfer and demanded the property back. The
demand was refused and she Immediately began sui
through her LAWYERS Eva-ts Choate BeaInan, 10 re-
cover IT,
The defence Is a general denial OF all the charges oil
fraud and deception and also OF instgatoh or lhnu
ence on the part OF young Mr.. Livingston or hef
family The principal points made are these LV'
ingstOn LivlngstO the Defendants father, uied III
1872 owning house and lot near Fort Lee N d.
and three houses and lots in York, namely, NO
Il West TEenty-sixth-st. No. % West NlneteehuEso
and No % Bleecker-st. This property was prdc-
uealy free from liens or membranes. III was OH
left nv win IN Mr. Livingston with the understanding
thai she shond give 10 her son, Philip l.. Livingston
such part of the estate as she should "ln hef JUG
nent zee III and prOper using her own discretion
when and al what age she shall give IL" MIS- LN
ngs,on was without business knowledge or experience
and was also extravagant. She made no a''ehpV u
live within her income, and by the hme One
tansfe, in ouestion was made had encfoache'
On the PRINCIPAL OF the estate, In the way OF orUssso
ena unpad CHARGES 10 the extent Of about @'s'ooo
Her financial condition was becoming serious anu
was IMPERATIVE that action should be taken " sA''
the property so her son proposed as the pest Sohe
he could devise for getting out OF the dlhcuS ~"
she should deed the property TO him, Ill reeui" ~
which he would pay her an annuity equal " VINO
the amount OF the property would bring IL i'V''V7'
with life insurance company. The sugees'o" nv
her favor; it was estimated that S3,3oo "ouiu W
liberal annuity and the deeds were sishea wiz" '"'
understanding. ..
After the first pay ment $141 81, haa Dcen iDs.
to her unGer this agreement. Mrs. Livingston 0""o
her mind, alleging that there was hothhs vi W
agreement to secure the annuity 70 her. thi' ~
ler dependent Oh her SON. and that III pN'sr 10 mae
eeath she would be left with no support. oartv {,
this objection Mr. Livingston decided Inc PrVpsIaw
rust 10 Edward Lyman short, OF DAVIS, ,,,cnos
av"hsend, his wife also signing Simply ~ bap sinc
VI releasing her dover rights. Mr. SNORT NJ, M lie
acted as tiIistee and paid lie annuity 10 MIS- tt
neton as IL became due The returns irVn tno soun
having fallen short Of the guaranteed amour ~, a.
feiency F -.
Td Arrangement has also proved unsaislaeV tb
70 Mo Livingston and the present suit aeb nv he
netnfn VI the property. proposition nhue ~ th
sen that he self the property and buy for her Will nc
proceeds an anngity IN any frstclass ME lhsu'""N
o'ppany, she has refused TO consider.