The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-01-09
elf is THAT
ARE NOT RETURNED
Annie Isenbruck and Mary
Craig in Court as De-
PENDANTS.
The Former Sued by Her Fa.
Their and the Latter Sued
by Her Brother.
Deeds Made When the Grantors
Thought They Were Dying Now
Sought to Be Cancelled.

Two women have been called on to re-
spond as defendants in suits whereby it is
sought to shake from their grasp property
decided TO them for love and affection
when the grantors thought themselves to
be dying, and which the fair recipients
ungratefully refused to return after the
aforesaid grantors had sufficiently re-
covered to manage their own affairs.
The last case is that of Charles Shrak-
kart, who has sued his daughter, Mrs.
Annie E. Isenbruck, and his son-in-law,
Rudolph E. A. Isen bruck, to compel them
to deed back to him certain property
which he AYERS they hold as their own
when in fact it belongs to him.
The real estate is described as begin.
ming at point on the north westerly line
of Bryant street, 206 feet and 3 inches
from Fifth street, and being 23x87 g feet
in size. 1t is worth several thousand
dollars.
Mr.. Shrakkart alleges that in Decem Der,
1885, he signed deed purporting to trans
fer to his daughter the property in dis
pute, the sole consideration being love
and affection. He says that the instru-
ment signed by him, although supporting
to be absolute in form and purporting to
grant the property to his daughter, was
in fact deed of trust, and was so ac-
cepted by her; that at tle time OF the
signing of the deed he was suffering from
serious ailments and was In immediate
fear of death; that 1t was agreed between
them that in the event OF his death the
conveyance of the property should be
absolute, but that il he recovered she was
tn deed IL hack To him.
The father got well and asked for re-
conveyance of the property, but his
daughter refused to comply with his re-
quest, declaring that she considered the
real estate as her own ana altogether ig-
noring her fathers claim of ownership.
He asks that the deed be Cancelled and
that his daughter and his son-in-Iaw be
required to return the property to him.
Justice of the Peace G. q. Groezinger ap-
peared as attorney for the plaintiff.
In Judge Hebbard's court the trial of
the suit OF Robert Bright against Mrs.
Mary Craig, his sister. was on trial yester-
day. Attorney James FL. Mcknight read
Mr.. Bright's deposition, because the
plaintiff is not able to appear in court
his mental faculties are said to be unim-
paired.
Brighps story is pathetic for with evil
dent sorrow and without any bitterness he
reveals the circumstances which have led
to the quarrel with his sister. He said
that he came to San Francisco in April,
1849, and that he has accumulated prom
erty worth $4,000 He is 80 years old and
she is only two years his junior.
1--WE lived together in peace and happi-
ness Tor long time" said Mr.. Bright. u
trusted her and she trusted me. We never
had any trouble until / got sick and gave
her nv money and decided her the prop
ertv, because / thought was going to die
and l wanted her to have it after / was
through with it.
Mr.. Bright didn't die, but got much
better SO far as his mental faculties were
concerned, so he thought he would like to
have control of the $4,000 cash which he
had in bank besides the real estate to
which she held deeds executed by him !;
but she refused to return the property to
him, so he left the house which he had
owned SO long, but which she now c aimed
as her property. and sued for the recovery
of everything that he had conveyed to
her.
She claimed she was the only blood
relative that he has in California and that
she was legally entitled 10 the control and
management of his affairs; that she did
not propose having any one else interior
ing in the matter; that she was worth
100000 in her own right and was able to