Majority
Headnote
Mortgage—Subrogation—Volunteer.—This action was brought for subrogation to and foreclosure of a mortgage. The facts which seem to be established by the record are as follows, although other facts are assumed by the appellant to be established because of admissions in the pleadings which however cannot be considered because of the fact of there being an infant who put in a general answer.
John Eagan died on the 17th of May, 1875, leaving his widow, the defendant, Clara M. Eagan, and two children, a son, William Gr. Eagan, and a daughter, Clara E. Eagan, who afterwards became Clara E. Pease. The said John Eagan left a will which was duly admitted to probate, his wife qualifying as sole executrix, and by which, after bequeathing his household furniture to his wife, all his estate, real and personal, was devised and bequeathed to his,
It appears that subsequently the said Clara E. Eagan, having subsequently married the plaintiff, commenced a proceeding in the surrogate’s court to open the decree theretofore entered upon her consent, but said application was denied. In July, 1880, Clara E.
Upon these facts the court dismissed the complaint, and from the judgment thereupon entered this appeal is taken.
Although the ground upon which the learned judge put his decision does not seem to be borne out by the facts, yet the interference of the court is asked upon the assumption that certain facts appear which were not established, namely, that the acquiescence of the plaintiff’s testatrix in the payment of this mortgage was obtained by representations in respect to the condition of the property which caused her to consent thereto, not being apprised of her rights.
It is true that the admission of those facts is contained in the answer of the adult defendants, but there being a general answer by an infant, such admission amounted to nothing, and in order that any such condition of affairs should be considered it should have been proven upon the trial.
It is clear that under the will of John Eagan the interest of the children in the personal estate became absolute upon their arriving at the age of twenty-one, and that as both the children did attain the age of twenty-one they became the absolute owners of the personal estate devised to be held in trust during their minority. Their interest in the real estate, however, was of an entirely different character. Such interest was liable to be divested by their death during the lifetime of the widow, except only as to such portions of the real estate as might be sold after the children became twenty-one, with the consent of the widow. It was necessary, therefore, either that the widow should die or the real estate be sold by and with her consent after the arrival of the children at twenty-one, in order that such children should have an indefeasible interest in said real estate. The provision of the will is explicit that should any of the children of the testator die during his life, or. after his death, before the time in said will appointed for selling and distributing the said real estate, and should leave legal issue him surviving, then the issue shall take when the time of distribution arrived. If they left no issue then the surviving brother or sister was to take. Thus the absolute vesting of the estate depended upon either the death of testator’s widow or the sale of the real estate, with her consent, after the children arrived at twenty-one years of age.
The real estate was not sold; and Clara E. Pease died without issue during the lifetime of the widow. Consequently her share or interest in the estate went, under the will of her father to her brother, or his issue if he should die, as has happened, during the lifetime of the widow.
Under this state of facts Clara E. Pease consented to the payment of this mortgage partially out of her money, and it further appears that upon the rendition of the account to the surrogate this money was charged and she consented to the passing of the account; and there is no evidence whatever to show that she did
It is true this fact is assumed in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants, but there is no proof to establish the same.
Under such circumstances there does not seem to be any basis: for the claim of the right of subrogation, and we think that the conclusion which was reached by the court below was correct and that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Barrett, J., concurs in the result