Steele v. Steele

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a claim of $5,000 filed in the Orphans’ Court by the appellee against his father’s estate. As first pre ⁴⁷⁸ sented, it was a claim for “amount due from making sale of Eldridge Mullinix’s personal property, as per bill of sale; amt. due as per agreement for buying law books, and nine months time in studying same; amt. due for making settlements, drawing agreement, notices, consummating deals and services rendered at different times, as per agreement, from Jany. 1st, 1888, to Dec. 1st, 1890, $5,000.” Such a claim as this for services rendered at different times, in making settlements, drawing agreements, consummating deals, buying law books, and studying law for the lump sum of $5,000, strikes us, to say the least, as an extraordinary claim. This claim, however, was withdrawn, whether by the appellee of his own motion, or by advice of counsel, does not appear, .and in its place was filed the claim which forms the subject-matter of this appeal.

This is a claim based upon a verbal promise by the father, that if the appellee would purchase a certain woolen factory, then advertised for sale, he, the father, would contribute $5,000 towards the payment of the purchase money, and, relying upon this promise, the appellee bought the property. The right of the appellee to enforce the payment of such a claim as this depends — first, upon whether the promise was in fact made by the father, and if so, was the property purchased by the son upon the faith of the promise? and secondly, was the purchase of the property upon the faith of this promise, and of the liability thereby incurred, a sufficient consideration to make it a binding contract ? First. We fully agree that a promise of this kind ought to be established by the clearest and most satisfactory proof.

At the same time, however, no one, it seems to us, can read the testimony in the record without being satisfied beyond question that the promise was made by the father, and that the property was purchased by the son on the faith of the promise. Mr. Gary, the trustee, by whom the property was advertised for sale, says that Mr. Steele, the father, came to ⁴⁷⁹ "him "before the day of sale to make inquiries as to the terms of sale, and the value' of the property. Witness told him that its value depended upon the ability of the purchaser to manage and conduct the business; that the present owner had not been successful, but in the hands of a competent person he thought the property would be valuable. To this the father replied by saying, he had no doubt as to the ability of his son as a manufacturer; that he had served a long apprenticeship at the business, having contributed largely to the success of Wm.

J. Dickey & Sons, for whom he had been the manager of the Wetheredville Woolen Mills. He then proposed to exchange a farm-belonging to him, situated in Carroll County for. the mill property, but this proposition the witness declined. After the sale he «ame to the office of the witness with his son, and said, as Nicholas had bought the property, he wanted to make some arrangement about the deferred payments. After some further conversation he said his son would need’ money to conduct the brrsiness, and wanted to know if he could borrow money of the witness on collateral security.

Mr. Grassaway Watkins, abrother-in-law and neighbor of Mr. Steele, the father, says the latter sent for him to talk over the purchase of the property by his son, and said he thought it would be the very property for Nicholas, as he understood the business thoroughly — that he was anxious to get his son away from