Eissler v. Hoppel. Johanna Eissler in open court personally renounces and releases all right, claim, title, and interest in the estate of which the said Lena Hoppel may die seized and possessed, and releases and renounces all claim under the mortgages and deeds described in the plaintiff's complaint, and all rights under the last will and testament of said John Hoppel, Sr., deceased." That in January following appellant accepted said sum of $3,000, and in the acceptance of the same executed on the margin of the record of said agreement and decree the following acknowledgment: "We hereby acknowledge receipt of $3,000 in full of amount ordered herein to be paid to Johanna Eissler, and we hereby agree for ourselves and our heirs to be bound by the terms and provisions of this decree. Johanna Eissler, Henry Eissler. Attest, Charles F. Boepple, Clk. Charles Sihler, Depty. James T. Walker." The overruling of appellant's demurrer to this answer is the only question presented. On the one hand it is affirmed by appellant that the answer is bad, because it shows that at the time of the compromise and settlement appellant had no interest or right in her mother's estate, who was then living, that was the subject of contract and conveyance, and, there being no warranty in the agreement, an after-acquired interest, upon the death of the mother, would not pass under the agree ment and decree. On the other hand, appellees contend that the answer is good, because it shows that the decree of court was entered upon an agreed family settlement, fair in its terms, to which the ancestor and heirs expectant, including appellant, were parties, each agreeing thereto knowingly and with freedom from fraud; and appellant, having received the agreed consideration for the relinquishment of her expectant interest in the estate of her mother, is bound thereby. The situation at the time of the agreement was this: Appellant was a legatee for $2,500 under her father's will, payable after her mother's death, but conditioned that, if appellant died childless, $1,000 of the legacy should go Eissler v. Hoppel. to her husband, and the other $1,500 to her brothers and sisters, who were parties to the agreement. It will thus be seen that appellant, by the agreement with her mother and brothers and sisters, obtained immediate and absolute possession of the $2,500 legacy and $500 additional. The mother surrendered the use and benefit of the $2,500 for and during her life and $500 of her own estate, and the brothers and sisters surrendered their contingent interest in $1,500 of the legacy and their prospective interest in the additional $500 given by the mother. These valuable considerations moved appellant to covenant and agree "that said $3,000 should be in full satisfaction and discharge of the share or portion to which she might at any time have in any estate, property, rights, credits, or choses in action belonging to the said Lena Hoppel (her mother) at the time of her, the said Lena Hoppel's death." We see no reason why this agreement should not have the force and effect its terms indicate. Appellant cites and relies for a reversal upon the principle announced in McClure v. Raben, 125 Ind. 139, 9 L. R. A. 477. But it is perfectly plain that this case does not come within the class to which the McClure case belongs. The transaction falls far short. of being an attempt by an heir to sell and transfer to a stranger his expectant interest in his ancestor's estate without the knowledge and consent of such ancestor. The reasons which invoke the law's disapproval of contracts for the sale of expectancies, without the knowledge and consent of the ancestor, are wholly absent from the case before us. Here a mother is dealing directly with her children, one of whom has become dissatisfied as to her rights in her father's estate. "To settle all differences that have arisen" as the agreement reads, in the distribution of the patrimony, and thus to restore peace and good fellowship in the family, the mother intervenes between her children, and, to accomplish her maternal purpose, appropriates part of her own estate. The settlement contract was fair to appellant, so far as any Eissler v. Hoppel. thing appears, and surely no presumption will arise against the mother. The mother evidently derived no financial benefit from it. She gave up important rights when she was under no obligation to do so. If she had chosen, she might have willed her property to her other children, to the utter exclusion of appellant; or she might have expended it all in her own comforts and pleasures, or wasted it in improvident management, without giving appellant grounds for complaint. On the other hand, appellant was competent and qualified to decide for herself whether the $3,000, cash down, in her absolute right, was better than to take chances against contingencies in getting a larger sum upon the death of her mother. Public policy rather promotes than condemns such contracts. It often happens that children after leaving home, and engaging in enterprises of their own, become so situated that the advancement, at a particular time, of a less amount than seems likely to be a full share at the death of an ancestor, will be more profitable to the recipient than to wait for the larger amount. In such cases, therefore, parents and other kindred, being presumed to be considerate of the rights and interests of those who are naturally the objects of their bounty, are left free to deal with their heirs as they may deem just with respect to the heirs' ultimate portion, and may advance a part, or, as in any other matter, contract with the heir for a specific amount in full of all expectancy; and when such a contract is free from fraud, and supported by a valuable consideration, courts of equity will enforce it against the heir after the death of the ancestor, though it may turn out to have been a disadvantageous bargain. Brown v. Brown, 139 Ind. 653; Nicholson v. Caress, 59 Ind. 39, 49; Power's Appeal, 63 Pa. St. 443; Crum v. Sawyer, 132 Ill. 443, 24 N. E. 956; Havens v. Thompson, 26 N. J. Eq. 383; Estate of Garcelon, 104 Cal. 570, 38 Pac. 414, 32 L. R. A. 595, 43 Am. St. 134; Brands v. DeWitt, 44 N. J. Eq. 545, 10 Atl. 181, 14 Atl. 894, 6 Am. St. 909; Jones v. Jones, 46 Iowa 466, 472. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Jones. The answer is sufficient, and there is no pretense but the proof fully sustained it. Appellant, having no interest in her mother's estate, has no standing in court to contest her will. Judgment affirmed. THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO SOUTHWESTERN RAIL- [No. 19,509. Filed February 18, 1902.] COURTS.-Personal Injury Occurring in Sister State.-Lex Loci.—In an Action by Thomas E. Jones against the Baltimore and R. E. Hamill, O. H. Montgomery, H. D. McMullen, H. McMullen and C. McMullen, for appellant. T. C. Batchelor, for appellee. JORDAN, C. J.-This action was instituted by appellee in Ripley county for the recovery of personal injuries, and on motion was venued to the Jennings Circuit Court, wherein a trial before a jury resulted in a verdict for appellee, and over appellant's motion for a new trial judgment was rendered thereon. The errors assigned relate to the court's Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Jones. rulings on demurrer to each paragraph of the complaint, and on demurrer to certain paragraphs of the answer, and in denying the motion for a new trial. The complaint is in seven paragraphs, but it seems to be conceded by both parties that under the answer of the jury to interrogatories it is disclosed that there was a finding in favor of appellant on the third and seventh paragraphs; consequently, these are not discussed or considered by counsel in their argument. Each paragraph of the complaint alleges that appellant is a railroad corporation, and owned, operated, and controlled at the time of the accident in question, and prior thereto, a railroad running and extending from the city of Cincinnati, in the state of Ohio, through the states of Indiana and Illinois, on to the city of St. Louis, in the state of Missouri; that appellee, at the time he sustained the injuries of which he complains, resided in Ripley county, Indiana, through which county said railroad runs, and that on and prior to the 7th day of December, 1896, he was employed in the service of appellant as a locomotive engineer operating and running the locomotive attached to one of its passenger trains which was run from a station in Indiana to the city of Cincinnati, in the state of Ohio; that on the said 7th day of December, while the train on which he was employed as such engineer was en route east to the latter city, and when at a station on appellant's railroad named Storr, in the state of Ohio, said train collided with an extra or special train which was being run west over appellant's road, by which collision appellee was seriously injured, etc. The first paragraph of the complaint attributes the accident and injury received therefrom to the failure of appellant to notify appellee of the presence on its road of said extra or special train. The second paragraph charges that the accident was due to the negligence of the railroad company in employing an unskillful and inexperienced conductor and in placing him in charge of said special or extra train, with |
