The record-union., 1895-11-08
THEIR EYES ON THE MAIN CHANCE.
Judgment for Defendants in the
Scroggs Estate Case.
But Judge Grant Regrets That There
is More Law Than Equity
on Their Side.

The decision of Judge Grant of Yolo
who presided in court here during the
! trial of the case of Almira J. Reichert
and others against j. C. Scroggs and
others was filed yesterday. The case
was one of those growing out of the
many complications in the matter OF
the settlement of the estate of the late
Alexander Scroggs.
1t was a contest between two of the
decease6s daughters on the one side
and their two brothers and sister-in-laW
on the other, and as in a former action
involving some of the property of the es-
tate, the latter parties to the contro-
versy come out victorious. In his de-
cision Judge Grant says:
This action is brought by the two
daughters of Alexander Scroggs, de-
ceased, against his two sons and a
daug hter-in-law to set aside certain
deeds executed by the deceased some
six months prior to his death, purport-
| ing to convey certain real property IN
the city of Sacramento to the defend
ants.
THE testimony develops a lamentable
state of affairs between the parties, IL
which it appears that each has an eye
! u the uldiu Cuduce, anu OH the pdIl VI
some of the defendants there seems to be
an utter disregard of the natural and
! equitable rights of the others.
| IF the deeds are allowed to stand the
defendants shall receive substantially
ali the property of which the decedent
! died seized. and in this way will
| succeed to considerably more than an
equal share of the property accumu-
lated by the decedent and his wife in
| their lifetime.
AT the close of the plaintiffs case a
motion was made for a non-suit, which
motion l am now of the opinion should
| have been granted, SO, for the pur-
! poses of this decision, l shall treat the
testimony for the plaintiffs as true and
uncontroverted.
1.-The right of the plaintiffs to recover
| depends largely upon the determination
OF the question as to the burden of proof
! The facts of the execution of the
! deeds by the decedent, without con-
sideration, to his sons, and the Unequal
! ity of the division of the property by
reason of said deeds, being proved
must the defendants show by a pre-
| pCnderance of testimony that there was
no undue influence exercised in procur-
| ing their execution, or does it devOlve
upon the plaintiffs to prove affirma-
lively that there was such undue lnf1u-
1
| Able and exhaustive briefs have beer
! filed by respective counsel, and | have
| carefully examined all of the authori-
ties cited therein. The plaintiffs cen
| tend that the burden of proof is upon
the defendants to show good faith, anC
| absence of undue influence, and the
authorities cited by them sustain thcil
contention. These authorities, how
ever. are mostly from the State of New
| ha IA VX-hi r.
prevails there does not, 1 regret to say
obtain in this State. Our Supreme
Court has held, on several occasions
and in cases which were evidently wei
considered, that the undue influence
which will authorize the cancellation Of
a deed must be tantamount to force OF
| fear-that it must amount to force anC
| coercion destroying free agency II
must not be the influence of affection
and attachment, nor the result of ca
| joleries, opportunities nor solicitations
! however strenuous, unless it be sufii-
| Gent to overcome the will of the
| grantor.
Nor has our Supreme Court stopped
| here, but they have held that, having
| shown the exercise of this undue in
| fiuence upon the mind of the grantCr
! ii is incumbent upon the party attack
/ ing the conveyance to go further arC
!
| attacked was the direct result of such
exercise of undue influence. Under
| this state of the law it is practically irn-
| possible to successfully attack a con
veyance upon this ground. Juries, arL
| just men generally, lean against tesla
| mentary conVeyances and wills which
seem to them unequal and unjust, anG
l confess similar leaning myself, l'nt
/ il would be folly under the existing
! Il.
| question.
Il think the testimony shows that
! the general influence of the sons witt
their father was strong, notably in the
1 instance when Aleck ScrOggs procured
! the conveyance to himself of M-street
property which his father had already
promised to convey to the plaintiff, Mrs
| Reichert; and again, when j. G. ScroggS
procured the purchase of the fruit
wagon for Aleck, Jr., but the testimony
| does not show that the influence was
suff cient to overcome the will of the de-
cedent and if it were, it must still bt
/ shown that this influence was brOugh
to bear upon the very act of executing
! the deed There must be proof thai
the influence was used directly to pro
! cure the deed. Goodwin VS.. Goodwin
- Cal. $50; Estate of Carpenter 81 Cal
406: Estate of McDevitt, % Cal. Ia
| his pIOOl, lIllilh. 10 IL
this / am but stating the law as / find i
to be, and I have no hesitation in say
inc that 1 wish a more equitable rul,
prevailed in this State.
NO good purpose can be SubServed by
| commenting at length upon either tn,
! law or the facts. / have the testimony
| before me as transcribed by the report
en- and I have refreshed my recollection
by looking over the material portions o
Of
shows that he and j. c. tried to turr
their father against the girls by carry.
| inc tales, telling him that Mrs. Reicher
was against him. and rehearsing the
unfortunate litigation between him anC
| Mrs. Wermuth, and that they did this
/ fer the purpose of getting the prop
crty for themselves.
This result was accomplished, and il
| seems to me that the law should permit
/