Webb v. DeVan

YORK, J. This action was brought in order to establish a claim against the estate of R. Fred Vogel, deceased, based upon a promissory note for '$25,000, executed by decedent in his lifetime in favor of the plaintiff.

[430]Upon conclusion of the trial in the lower court, it was found to be untrue that the execution of the note was obtained by undue influence, or that it was without consideration to the decedent. It was found that plaintiff was regularly employed by decedent as secretary from about the year 1910 until the early part of 1925, when she ceased to be in his employ, and was not again regularly employed by him until she returned to him in the same capacity in March of 1928, pursuant to agreement between plaintiff and said decedent which resulted in the giving of the note sued upon in this action, and she remained in his employ in that capacity up to the time of decedent’s death. The court also found that during the period when she was not regularly employed by decedent, the plaintiff was occasionally employed by him to assist in the preparation of his income tax returns and in the matter of the payment of state and county taxes and special assessments; and that during the period of her regular employment it was incumbent upon her, as a part of her duties, to assist in maintaining tenants in decedent’s various properties, collect the rents thereof and assist in clerical or other work called upon to perform, but that it was not true that she was ever employed or acted as manager of decedent’s properties, nor did she occupy a position or relationship of a confidential or fiduciary or trust character, and at the time the note was executed there was no confidential or trust relationship existing between plaintiff and decedent. It was found that in addition to the business relations existing between them, plaintiff and decedent sustained to some extent social or friendly relations; but that it is not true that plaintiff, by reason of any .professional or business or social relations existing between them, exercised or exerted over decedent on the seventeenth day of March, 1928 (the date of the execution of the note), or for any period of time prior thereto, nor at any time thereafter, a dominating or controlling influence.

As conclusions of law from the foregoing findings of fact the court declared that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment to the effect that the claim presented against the estate of decedent is a valid claim against defendant, as executor of said estate, and that said claim be established and allowed and that the executor be required to pay the same in accordance with the terms of said note in due