In re Irvine
Before: Harrison, Haven
Synopsis
Estates of Deceased Persons—Compromise of Claim—Action to Rescind—Finding Against Evidence.—Where a claim against the estate of a deceased attorney was compromised with the administrator by allowing an offset of $250, as attorney’s fees, in an action to rescind the compromise for fraud, upon the alleged ground that a balance of $880, due to the claimant, had not been paid or accounted for, except to the extent of $250, which had, without right, been charged as attorney’s fees, a finding that, by reason of false representations, plaintiff was induced to settle the claim, and accept in full payment $500 less than the amount justly due and payable, is against the evidence, where the testimony in behalf of the administrator proved that the whole claim, excepting the sum of $250, agreed upon for attorney’s fees, had been paid to the claimant, and written instruments were proved, consisting of a satisfaction of the judgment, in which there was an acknowledgment that the whole claim had been paid by the administrator, and a release of the administrator from all claims, acknowledging that the whole claim, less $250, had been paid to the claimant by the administrator, and a written receipt for the sum of $250, on account of the claim, signed by the claimant, and the oral contradiction by the claimant of the effect of the writings, and of the proof of payment, and oral evidence of the claimant that $880 had not been paid, given six years after the date of the writings, does not create a substantial conflict sufficient to support the finding of the court.
Id.—Weight of Evidence—Conte: diction of Writings.—Oral testimony in contradiction of the plain terms of written instruments, or of written admissions, should be clear, full, and precise; and the weight to be given to such testimony diminishes from the date of the instrument which it purports to contradict or overcome.
Opinion — Harrison
Harrison, J. The decedent in his lifetime made a promissory note to Annie M. Bascom, for the sum of [607]$3,600, and to secure its payment made a mortgage upon certain lands in San Francisco, standing of record in his name. This mortgage was not placed of record until after the death of the mortgagor, and subsequent to its execution he made an agreement for the conveyance of the land to one Connolly. The money for which the note was made belonged to Eudora V. Smith, the petitioner herein, but for personal reasons the note and mortgage were executed to her mother, Mrs. Bascom. A claim upon the note and mortgage was presented to the administrator of the decedent’s estate, but was rejected, for the reason, as claimed by him, that there had been an agreement on the part of the petitioner for a reduction of the rate of interest, and also that there was an unadjusted claim against her in behalf of the estate for services as her attorney. No action was ever brought by her upon the claim after its reduction, nor did she ever present any other claim against the estate. Subsequent to the rejection of the claim, Connolly brought an action against the administrator for the performance of the aforesaid agreement of sale. In that action Mrs. Bascom was made a party defendant, and she in her answer alleged the execution of the note and mortgage, and it was adjudged therein that Connolly was entitled to a conveyance from the administrator, but that the mortgage of Mrs. Bascom was a first lien upon the land, and that the land be sold by the sheriff, and out of the proceeds she be paid the sum of $3,980. The property was not sold under this judgment, but, out of the proceeds of a private sale of the property made by Connolly, the amount of the judgment was turned over to the administrator of Irvine’s estate, to be applied in its satisfaction, it being recognized as an obligation of that estate. In his final account the administrator credits himself with having paid this amount to the petitioner, and this account was settled and allowed by the court. December 21, 1888, the petitioner filed her petition in the matter of said estate for an order setting aside the order settling the [608]account, setting forth therein that, by reason of certain false representations made to her, she had been induced to agree to a compromise of her claim against the estate, and that the administrator, instead of paying her the sum of $3,980, as claimed by him in his account, had paid her only $3,100, and that the balance of $880 had not been accounted for except to the extent of $250, which in his account he had without right charged as attorney’s fees collected from her. These averments of the petitioner were denied by the administrator, and the matter was heard by the court, who found as facts that certain representations, which were untrue in fact, were made to the petitioner, and that she, believing them to be true, “was induced to compromise and settle, and did compromise and settle, her claim against the estate of said decedent, and agreed to accept, in full payment thereof, $500 less than the amount justly due and payable to her thereon,” and as a conclusion of law, found that she was entitled to have paid to her out of the assets of said estate in the hands of the administrator, the sum of $500, and for said purpose the order settling the final account should be set aside. A motion for a new trial was denied, and afterwards a decree was entered, setting aside the order settling the account, and directing the payment to the petitioner of said sum of $500 out of the funds of said estate. From this order and decree an appeal has been taken.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)