Court Opinion

ID: 9516935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:56:40.906846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:19.578377
License: Public Domain

Carter, J.,
dissenting.
The original petition filed in this case alleged that the deed in question was obtained by undue influence on the part of the defendant. The summons was served on January 2, 1951. On April 27, 1951, an amended petition was filed which alleged additionally that the deed was never delivered in the lifetime of Charles Cain with the intent to then pass the title or an interest therein. On January 9, 1951, the deposition of the defendant, Emily Killian, was taken. The plaintiffs’ case rests largely, but not wholly, upon the admissions made by the defendant in this deposition.
*138The admissions made by defendant are substantially as follows: That she did not claim or have title to the land until her father’s death; that her father always told her that until he died, or at least until he became so ill that he didn’t perhaps talk sense, the farm was then to become hers; that if her father had changed his mind about the deed and decided to let the property go by the will, he could have had the deed back; and that the stipulation in the deed was that he could sell it if he wanted to and that it was part of the deal at the time he gave her the deed. She was then asked: “At*any rate, whether or not it was in the deed in so many words, that was the understanding you had with your father?” Her answer was: “That’s right.” She testified that if her father wanted to sell the ranch he could do so and that these understandings were had at the time the deed was made out, and after that. She says that her father asked her to agree that if he decided to sell the ranch he was free to do so, and that she agreed to it. That she made the foregoing admissions against interest are not denied by her.
On her direct examination at the trial she again admitted that the farm was to be hers after the death of her father, as evidenced by the following question and answer: “Mrs. Killian, during all this time that you had this deed in your pocketbook, it was your father’s intention that the farm would definitely be yours after his death, is that right? That’s right.”
It must be borne in mind that, at the time the deposition was taken, the only issue set forth in the pleadings was that of undue influence in. the procurement of the deed by the defendant. Objections were interposed to all questions tending to bring out conversations had between the defendant and her father on the authority of section 25-1202, R. R. S. 1943. The foregoing section of the statute provides, insofar as it is applicable here, that no person, having a direct legal interest in the result of any civil action when the adverse party is the *139representative of a deceased person, shall be permitted to testify to any transaction or conversation had between the deceased person and the witness unless the representative shall have introduced a witness who shall have testified to such transaction or conversation, in which case the person having the direct legal interest may be examined in regard to the facts testified to by such witness, but shall not be permitted to further testify in regard to such transaction or conversation. I submit that under the foregoing statute the defendant could properly be interrogated concerning the admissions against interest made by her, and no more. Having admitted the admissions to be true, only the presumption of a legal delivery of the deed stands against the admissions. I contend. that the presumption of a legal delivery dissipates itself when opposed by the unequivocal admissions made by the defendant.
The trial court permitted this defendant in her capacity as the nominated executrix in her father’s will to waive in open court the privilege of attorney and client between the attorney, who drew the will, and her father. The attorney then gave evidence as to what her father said at the time the will was prepared. This was clearly erroneous under our holding in In re Estate of Coons, 154 Neb. 690, 48 N. W. 2d 778. It is evident that the trial court relied upon this evidence to sustain the legal delivery of the deed for the simple reason that there was no other competent evidence upon which it could be sustained. In my opinion no basis exists for the application of the rule announced in the majority opinion to the effect that suits in equity will be tried de novo on appeal, and when the evidence is in irreconcilable conflict this court will consider the fact that the trial court accepted one version of the facts rather than another. This rule presupposes an irreconcilable conflict in the competent evidence before the court. As I view it there is no competent evidence to establish *140the legal delivery of the deed and consequently there is no basis for the application of the rule.
The majority opinion gives credence to a statement by the defendant to the effect that the land was hers the “minute he gave me the deed.” This was a conclusion of the witness, self-serving in character, and bore no relation whatever to the question whether or not the' deceased intended to presently convey the title to the land on the date of the manual delivery of the deed. The majority apparently deem it important that the father made no attempt in his lifetime to exercise the reserved right to recover the deed, to sell the land, or to have the title pass by will. I fail to see how the failure to exercise a reservation can have any bearing whatever on the intent of the grantor at the time he manually delivered- the deed. If he had exercised his reserved right, then probably no litigation would have ensued. If subsequent failure to exercise a reserved right is evidence of intent to convey present title by the manual delivery of a deed, our rules become ambiguous and indefinite, and the legal delivery of a deed becomes contingent upon subsequent conduct. Such is not the law. Even as a circumstance surrounding the transaction it is of little or no evidentiary value.
I submit that plaintiffs made a prima facie case in offering the admissions against interest made by the defendant which overcame the presumption of a legal delivery of the deed. There was no competent evidence in the record to sustain a legal delivery of the deed in accordance with the law of this jurisdiction as set forth in Kellner v. Whaley, 148 Neb. 259, 27 N. W. 2d 183, and Kula v. Kula, 149 Neb. 347, 31 N. W. 2d 96. It is clear to me that the change of position by the defendant shown by the majority opinion, even if it was competent to be shown, was induced by personal interest after the changes made in the amended petition made her evidence, given under oath in a deposition, fatal to the result which she desired. Defendant told a story in her *141deposition which was consistent with every subsequent circumstance. She did. not file the deed with the register of deeds until after her father’s death. She made no claim to the property in his lifetime and conceáled the existence of the deed from her brothers and sisters. She repeatedly and unequivocally stated in her deposition that the deed was subject to recall and that the land was to be hers only at her father’s death. She made at least one similar admission on the trial in the district court. It is clear to me under the undisputed competent evidence that Charles Cain attempted a testamentary disposition of the land in question by deed in violation of section 30-204, R. R. S. 1943. I would reverse the judgment of the district court and enter a decree setting aside the deed.
Wenke, J., joins in this dissent.