Simpson v. League

²⁸⁸ Schmucker, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The record before 11s presents for our consideration cross-appeals taken by the plaintiff and certain of the defendants from a decree of Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City. The bill in the case was filed by Eliza Simpson, an aged and illiterate woman, to procure a decree setting aside certain gifts made by her, of real estate and money in savings banks, upon the alleged ground that in making them she had acted under undue pressure from the donees and without a proper understanding of the true nature of her own acts. The substance of the allegations of the bill may be stated as follows: In the latter part of the year 1907 the plaintiff being then over eighty years of age, unmarried and without relatives nearer than a sister of the half blood, was seised’in fee of two houses and lots in Baltimore City, known as No. 1028 Gran-by street and No. 220 South Ann street, and possessed of $30,135.32 deposited to her credit in the Savings Bank of Baltimore and $6,4.02.31 deposited to her credit in the Eutaw Savings Bank.

In the month of September in that year she had her last will prepared by Harry E. Mann, Esq., her solicitor, which she duly executed and lodged for safe keeping with the Register of Wills of Baltimore City. She was thereafter persuaded and led to believe by the defendant John Simpson League, who was an acquaintance but no blood relation, that in all probability any will made by her at that time of life would be contested and set aside by reason of her infirm condition, and was also influenced and persuaded by him that it would be better for her to place her property under his control and management during her lifetime. For the purpose of putting him in control of her property she, on September 16th, 1907, withdrew all of the money tO' her credit in the savings banks and redeposited it in the same banks in her own name in trust for herself and John S. League joint owners subject to the order of either the balance at the death of either, to belong to the survivor, and also directed her counsel to prepare a deed conveying absolutely from her to the said League the houses on Granby and Ami. ²⁸⁹ streets, and that on the 3rd. of October, 1907, she executed the deed and delivered it to him. On or abont Eebruary 18th, 1908, in breach of the confidence she had reposed in him and with the intent to deprive her of her property League had the title to the two houses conveyed to himself and his wife Marilla League as tenants by the entireties, and also withdrew $28,876.66 of the money in the Savings Bank of Baltimore and redeposited it therein to his own credit in trust for himself and his wife joint owners subject to the order of either and at the death of either of them to belong to the other, and on the 14th of •> March, 1908, he withdrew $5,000 from the said bank account and applied it to his own use.

It is further alleged that League has possession of the bank books for all of the money remaining in the saving banks, although the bill does not say how they got into his possession, and that there remains in the Entaw Savings Bank but $1,258.34 of the money which was deposited there on September 16th to the joint credit of the: • plaintiff and League and the survivor of them in the manner already stated. The bill then alleges that by the transactions mentioned the plaintiff has through the cunning and wicked influences of League, been deprived of her entire estate and reduced to a condition of poverty _and dependence upon strangers for her-support, but it does not allege that the plaintiff ever notified League of her dissatisfaction with what she had done in reference to her property, or requested its return to her, or the delivery to her of the bank books for the money in the banks or -protested to League against his making drafts therefrom. League and his wife and the two savings banks are made defendants to the bill which prays for a decree, declaring void the deeds of the two houses, and requiring League and his wife to transfer to the plaintiff the money still remaining in the savings banks, and for an injunction pendente Hie restraining the banks from paying out any of it and for general relief. ²⁹⁰ The answers of the banks admitted the deposits and withdrawals of money mentioned in the bill but asserted their ignorance of the other matters therein alleged. The joint answer of League and wife admitted the execution of the deed of the two houses to League and the several transfers of the funds in the savings banks in the bill mentioned, but they categorically denied that such of those transactions as had been made by the plaintiff had been made by her at their instance or request or upon their advice or otherwise than of her own free will, and also asserted that those of ’said transactions which had been made by them or either of them had been done honestly and openly and either with the plaintiff’s previous authority or subsequent approval.

They ' emphatically denied that they, or either of them had ever directly or indirectly connived at or used any wicked or other influence or suggestion to the plaintiff to dispose of her property to them or either of them. On the contrary they asserted that the plaintiff’s gifts of property and money to them ánd her transactions incident thereto were her own voluntary and well understood acts performed under the direction of her own counsel in fulfilment of her long cherished and often expressed intentions, and that after she had made the dispositions of property and money in the bill mentioned, in their favor she on different occasions stated to third persons that she had done what she intended to do and that she had retained all that she needed for her wants in money and city stock. ' , . ■ By way of explanation of the plaintiff’s gifts of property and money to them the answer of League and wife asserts the existence of a state of facts of which the material portions are as follows: The plaintiff had known them both well from childhood up and had always called John Simpson League her nephew because he was named after her deceased brother. She was present at their marriage and had then and at other times given presents to them and their children. When their first son was born seventeen years ago she gave him a watch and said that he should be educated as a doctor and when his ²⁹¹ father said, how can I educate him as a doctor when I am making only $12 a week, the plaintiff replied “I have the money and have no other relations and I intend to give it all to you.” Early in September, 1901, after having uniformly for some years declared her intention to give League her property, she informed him and his wife that she would delay no longer but meant to go to see her lawyer Harry E. Mann, whom she had known when he was a boy, to transact the business.

She went to the office of Mr. Mann, whom the defendants had never known, and had him prepare a will, which she executed, out of League’s presence, giving him her entire estate and naming him as her executor without bond, and deposited it with the Eegister of Wills and gave League the ticket for it. Sometime thereafter without any suggestion from League or wife she told them that she had been informed that a will would have to go through the Orphans’ Oourt, which she did not desire, and that as she had ample means in cash in her house and city stock she had concluded to convey her two houses to League. The answer further avers the actual conveyance of the houses to League and also the transfer by the plaintiff of the money in the savings bank to the joint credit of herself and League and the survivor and the delivery of the bank books therefor by her to him, and avers that the subsequent transfer of the Bank of Baltimore account by him to the credit of himself and his wife and the survivor was made by the direction of the plaintiff after she had arranged to go with them to make the transfer but was prevented from doing so by a temporary lameness. She assigned as a reason, for directing the last mentioned transfer of the account in the Savings Bank of Baltimore to be made, that from the nature of League’s employment in operating railroad trains he was liable to be killed at anytime before her own death and in that event she desired his wife to have the property.

It is further averred that the $5,000 was withdrawn from the Baltimore Savings Bank by League with her approval and that the greater portion of it was applied to the purchase and equip ²⁹² ment of a dwelling on Luzerne street for him and his family with whom it was expected that the plaintiff would reside. The testimony in the case, of which we will speak hereafter, having been taken and the case heard, the learned Judge below was of the opinion that the conveyance by the plaintiff to the defendant of the two houses and also the transfer by her of the Savings Bank accounts in trust for the joint benefit of herself and League and the survivor were valid, but he did not think that League had the right to draw the money that he drew from the Eutaw- Savings Bank and appropriate it to his own use and that he should be required to return the amount so drawn to the joint account. The learned Judge ’ further found that the plaintiff did not. authorize League to change as he did the account in the Saving Bank of Baltimore but merely authorized him to substitute his wife in his own place upon his death as to that account, and that the form of that account should be so modified as to effect that result and League should be required to restore to that acount the money drawn by him therefrom, and applied to his own use, but not so much thereof as he had expended for the plaintiff, and that a transfer of the title to the Luzerne street house so that it will be held in the same manner that the money in the Savings Bank of Baltimore is directed to be held should be treated as a return by him to that bank account of the $3,100, which was expended in the purchase of that house. A decree in accordance with these conclusions having been passed in the Court below the plaintiff and the defendants League and wife took the cross-appeals therefrom which are now under consideration.

The case before us resolves itself, as such cases generally do, into a question of fact, the legal propositions controlling its detenninationloeing well settled. When the aid of a Court of equity is invoked to pass upon the validity of a mere gift, without substantial consideration,, made by an aged and ignorant person of what constitutes almost his or her entire estate, the transaction will be closely scrutinized and, unless it be clearly shown that the donor posséssed the requisite ²⁹³ legal capacity and acted freely and without undue influence or constraint in making the gift, it will not he upheld. The Court in such cases will consider not only the condition of the donor “at the time of the execution of the instrument and the circumstances of the execution itself * * * but also his previous life, habits and relation to others, so as to ascertain the natural or probable objects of his bounty and especially to discover his settled purpose, if he had any, in regard to the disposal of his estate.” Where fiduciary relations existed between the parties to the transaction the burden has uniformly been placed upon the donee to establish to the satisfaction of the Court the facts necessary to uphold the gift. Colgate Owings Case, 1 Bland, 345 ; Highberger v. Stiffler, 21 Md. 338 ; Todd v. Grove, 33 Md. 188 ; Cherbonnier v. Evitts, 56 Md. 276 ; Zimmerman v. Bitner, 79 Md. 115 ; Reed v. Reed, 82 Md. 138 .

On the other hand it is equally clear that the law concedes to a person of sound mind the right to dispose of his property in any manner he may deem proper, not inconsistent with its