Bragg v. Martenstein
Before: Kerrigan
Synopsis
Gift to be Consummated in Case of Death—Package of Stock and Bonds—Indorsement on Wrapper.—An understanding between a man and Ms daughter that each of them shall prepare papers disposing of their respective properties, which are to be placed in their respective packages, and that, in ease it becomes apparent to either that the other is about to die, the former shall put the contents of the package or envelopes of the one about to die into the possession of the parties to whom their inelosures are respectively addressed, is not changed, nor is the agency to make delivery of the package or envelopes of the daughter containing indorsed stock and bonds revoked, by the written indorsement by her on the brown paper wrapper, “In ease of my death to be opened only by Robert Bragg, Sr., or Rebecca Bragg Martenstein,” who are her father and sister and who are designated as executors in her contemporaneous will disposing of the rest of her estate, there being no direction in any of the writings as to the delivery of the inelosures upon the opening of the package.
Ib.—Interpretation of Word “Only” on Wrapper of Package.—The word “only,” contained in such indorsement, is a limitation upon the persons who might open the package, and not upon the time when it is to be opened.
Id. — Contemporaneous Writings — Interpretation Together.—The writing upon the outside of the wrapper and the writings upon and within its inelosures, if made contemporaneously and as parts of the same transaction by the decedent, are to be construed together; but no part of such writings is to receive an interpretation which will render them unlawful, inoperative, indefinite, unreasonable, and incapable of being carried into effect.
Id.—Circumstances Under Which Writings Were Made—Recourse to in Determining Their Meaning.—It is the duty of a court, when such documents come before it, to place such an interpretation upon the obscure direction of the writing upon the outside of the wrapper as will not only give a reasonable effect to what the writer intended by it, but in so doing, will also render effectual and valid the intent and purpose of the writer as expressed in its inclosures; and in order to do this, it is the province of the court to have recourse to the circumstances under which these several contemporaneous writings were made, as disclosed by the undisputed evidence in the ease.
Id.—Interpretation op Contract—When Question op Law.—When a writing requires explanation, and the circumstances surrounding its creation, as disclosed by the evidence, are undisputed, it becomes a question of law for the court, not a question of fact for the jury, to determine what the proper construction of the writing should be.
Id.—Intention op Deceased—Evidence Establishing—Direction op Verdict.—In this action by the executor of the will of the daughter to recover damages for the alleged conversion of the stocks, the undisputed facts as disclosed by the plaintiff himself, the father, show that it was the life-long purpose and intent of his daughter that her four sisters should be invested with the ownership of the respective shares of stock and bonds which were inclosed in the envelopes respectively indorsed and directed to them, and that this should be done by the delivery of such envelopes to the persons to whom they were directed when it became apparent to her father that she was about to die, that he was to act as her agent in the execution of such purpose, and that no intent on the part of the daughter to change this plan or revoke this agency was ever manifested by her to him during her life; and the' court, with all these facts before it, properly instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant.
KERRIGAN, J.
This is an action brought by Robert Bragg, as one of the executors of the last will and testament of his daughter, Mary Jane Bragg, deceased, against Rebecca Bragg Martenstein, another of his daughters, and the coexecutor of the will of his said deceased daughter, to recover damages for the alleged wrongful conversion of certain stocks, the property of the decedent during her lifetime. The case was tried before the court with a jury; upon the conclusion of the testimony and upon motion of the defendant, the court directed the jury to return their verdict in defendant’s favor, and it is the alleged error of the court in so doing which presents the chief question for consideration upon this appeal.
The facts of the case are practically undisputed, and are chiefly derived from the testimony of the plaintiff himself. They show that the plaintiff was the father of a family of fourteen children, among whom were five daughters, of whom the deceased, Mary Jane Bragg, was the eldest. For many years Mary Jane Bragg was a teacher in the public schools of San Francisco, during which time she accumulated considerable property, about forty thousand dollars worth of which was invested in the stocks and bonds of various corporations. A number of years ago she retired from teaching, and during the latter years of her life was afflicted with an affection of the heart, from which she was likely to die suddenly at any time, and to which, in fact, her decease was due. In the year 1898, Mary Jane Bragg and her father, the plaintiff herein, entered into an understanding and agreement that each of them should prepare or have prepared papers disposing of their respective properties, which were to be placed in their respective packages and that, in case it become apparent to either that the other was about to die, the former should put the contents of the package or envelopes of the one about to die into the possession of the parties to whom their inclosures were addressed. In pursuance of this arrangement, and during the month of February, 1910, Mary o Jane Bragg prepared four envelopes, which contained certain of her stock or bonds, duly indorsed by her; and upon each of said envelopes she wrote the name of one of her said sisters,
[202]
with the statement that the inelosure was her property. She then inclosed each of these envelopes in another envelope addressed to that one of her sisters to whom the inner envelope referred. She also at this time made her will, in which she specifically disposed of the rest of her property, but from which she omitted all reference to the stock and bonds which she had thus placed in their respective envelopes. Her father and her sister, the defendant herein, were made the executors of this will. The envelopes above referred to were placed in an open desk in her room, which was at all times open and available to the plaintiff, in whose home she lived and died. The relation between herself, her father, and her sisters was at all times during her life one of unclouded confidence and affection. About four days before her death, in July, 1910, the plaintiff was in her room, having been informed by her physician that she had but a few more days to live, and he himself believing her to be dying, and believing also that the time had come for carrying out her wishes with respect to these several envelopes and their inclosures, he went to her open desk, and taking from it the four envelopes addressed by his dying daughter to her four sisters respectively, went out and mailed each of them to the person to whom each was thus addressed. On the following day he saw the defendant herein, and learning that she had received her envelope by mail, advised her to have the stocks which it contained transferred at once into her own name upon the books of the several corporations, and he gave the like advice to his other daughters, who acted thereon before their sister’s death. At the time the plaintiff took the several envelopes in question from the desk of his daughter, she was lying propped up in bed, in full view of her desk and of himself, but was apparently asleep. He did not speak to her then as to what he was about to do, or thereafter as to what he had done, because of her dying condition, although her mind remained clear up to the time of her death; nor did her sisters, acting on his advice, directly refer to the fact of their receipt of her gifts, apparently for the same reason. At the time the plaintiff took these several envelopes from his daughter’s desk, they were wrapped, according to the plaintiff’s testimony, in a piece of common brown paper and tied with a piece of common string. This wrapper, he states, he threw into a waste-basket, in another room, without looking closely at it;
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)