Hall v. Hall

Parke, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. When John W. Hall married a. second time on November 25th, 1915, both he and his bride had children 'by former marriages. No other children were born to him, and when he died intestate on March 9th, 1922, he was survived by his wife, the appellee, and four sons, the appellants, and a granddaughter, who were his sole legal representatives. He was buried on Sunday, March 12th, and the next day the widow, Mary E. Hall, and his four children, B. Lee Hall, J. Keifford Hall, E. Boy Hlall 'and Balph W. Hall, and a granddaughter, Elizabeth B. Hall, the only child of his son, William C. Hall, who died before the intestate, met and entered into a purporting family settlement, which was later successfully assailed by the widow on the ground of fraud.

The sons have brought -this appeal in order to have reviewed the action of the court in avoiding the settlement by which (a) the widow waived both her claim to administer and her right to take one-third of the estate, and agreed instead, after the payment of the sum of $500 to the intestate’s brother, Bober-t H. Hall, and the deduction of the necessary expenses and allowances, exclusive of any commissions to the administrator, to accept as her full share of the intestate’s estate the one-fifth part of 'the funds coming into the hands' of 'the ad ¹⁸⁶ ministratox, after the arbitrary addition thereto of $1,200 and the subtraction therefrom of $1,000; and assigned all other remaining interest in the estate to the four sons, share and share alike; and. (b) the granddaughter agreed that her father’s debts should be deducted from her distributive share in her grandfather’s estate and to accept of the residue of said share the sum of $1,000 as her sole portion, assigning any amount left to the said four sons, share and share alike; and (e) J. Keifford Hall waived commissions as administrator- on the -estate, and (d) all the parties agreed that the •judgment of the intestate against J. Keifford Hall should not be accounted for at the amount recovered, .-but be treated as being for the reduced amount of $3000 in the settlement of the estate. As the intestate left an estate of both real and personal property whose value was charged iu the bill of complaint, and admitted by the answer of the appellants to be from forty to -sixty -thousand dollars, against-which there was'but. little to be deducted by way of indebtedness, the division under the settlement widely and substantially diverged from the provisions of law which .allotted one-third of the whole net estate to the widow, and the remaining two-thirds in five equal shares to every one of the four sons and the granddaughter. The parties, -however, were the owners of -the subject matter, and had capacity to contract, and in the division of their property a court of equity, favoring the .amicable adjustment of family affairs, has no concern with the relative generosity of the .actors, nor with the terms of settlement, and will not relieve the contracting parties from what they have stipulated unless the contract is voidable for fraud.

An extended analysis of all the testimony will not be attempted, but the couclusion of the court as to what- was established by the proof will be briefly stated. The court finds that several weeks before his death John W. Hall and his -son, J. Keiffo-rd Hall, went through the father’s private papers and discussed the disposition of his estate, and shortly after this the father sent to his attorney, A. Stengle Marine, ¹⁸⁷ Esq., -written instructions for the making of his will. Mr. Marine prepared the will -and took it to the residence of John W. Hall on March 7th, where Mr. Marine remained for some time, but left without the will having been approved or executed, but with the understanding that he was to return later in .the week, which was prevented by Mr. Hall’s death two days later. J. Keifford Hall was acting as the intermediary between bis father and Mir.

Marine; and, after his father’s death, but before- the burial, be took possession of the safe in which his father’s private papers were kept and removed the safe from the home to the bank, where it was kept unopened until the appraisement. "While it is denied by the widow, it must be taken as established that, at a conference on 'Saturday afternoon at which she, J. Keifford Hall, his wife, his brothers, Ralph W. Hall and E. Roy Hall were present, it was agreed that, because of bis knowledge of the intestate’s estate and of his friendship for J. Keifford Hall, Mr. Marine would be asked to come down on Monday to advise what should be done towards quickly settling the estate. An engagement was made by telephone with Mr. Marine, who inquired if the widow knew he Was to come, and he was informed that it was at her1 suggestion. The burial was on Sunday.

J. Keifford Hall and E. Roy Hall stayed with the widow, .and the next morning they were joined by Ralph W.. Hall, another .son, Elizabeth R. Hall, the granddaughter, and a little later by Dr. R. Lee Hall, the fourth son, and Mr. Marine, so that about ten o’clock in the morning the entire family and the attorney were together a.t the 'home. After some general conversation the widow was told by Mr. Marine and J. Keifford Hall that her husband had wished to have J. Keifford Hall settle his estate, and had intended to give his granddaughter, Elizabeth R. Hall, the sum of one thousand dollars only, and equally to divide the rest among 'his four sons and his wife, as he did not consider she was- entitled to more than a child’s portion. The widow testified that, the day after her husband’s death, ¹⁸⁸ J. Keifford Hall told her the estate was about $30,000, but she did not recall the discussion on that subject on Monday at the meeting, but all the sous did, and said that she and they concurred in estimating the value of the estate at about $35,000, while Mr. Marine testified it was approximated to be at the least $35,000, and from $35,000 to $40,000.

Upon his understanding that the amount of the estate was about $35,000, and knowing that the widow wished to have the matter of her interest in the estate settled as soon as possible, in order that she might return to her former home in Baltimore, Dr. Hall opened the negotiations with the widow by offering her $5,000 in cash for her share. He reached this amount by deducting $5,000 for the expenses of administration, and dividing the $30,000, so as to give the widow, every one of the sons, and the granddaughter, $5,000 each. The widow declined this proposal, and Dr. Hall inquired What was her suggestion. She replied that she would be willing to share equally with the four boys, provided the granddaughter should receive only the sum of $1,000, and that if the granddaughter would not be willing to accept this amount, she would apply for letters of administration, settle the estate, charge the regular commissions, take her full one-third part of the estate, and then give the granddaughter her legal share; and add together 'her share, her commissions and the legal shares of the four sons and divide the aggregate equally among herself and the sons.

The widow left the room while her proposal was being considered, and returned shortly to state that her offer should be modified by the additional requirement that the sum of $1,200 be added to the amount for distribution among her and the sons, and then $1,000 be deducted therefrom, and the residue should be equally apportioned so as to give her one-fifth thereof. The granddaughter declined to agree to this settlement, and asked to talk to Dr. Hall privately. The two went out of the room and this was what occurred between them, as narrated by Dr. Hall: “We talked the matter over, and believing as I did that Elizabeth was entitled to her father’s ¹⁸⁹ part of the estate, had he been living, I told her that I would .assure her a thousand dollars, and felt that the boys would be willing to do likewise. She agreed that my proposition with her was satisfactory, we went into the room with the others in the presence of Mrs. Hall, and I said, it had been .satisfactorily arranged with Elizabeth, and that she was willing to sign such an agreement or contract when drawn.

That ns far as I recall ended the discussion of the bill of arrangements or contract.” The widow’s recollection is substantially the same. She testified that the granddaughter refused because she wanted her father’s share and that “R. Lee Hall said he would go out and talk to Elizabeth and see what he could do with her, and when he came in he said she would sign for $1,000.” The secret arrangement made with the granddaughter by Dr. Hall in order to secure her signature to the agreement, and whereby she received $1,000 under the agreement, and $4,000 additional from the four sons, or $5,000 in all, was privately communicated by Dr. Hall to every one of his three brothers, and agreed to by them before