Danton v. Haas

198 P. 818, 52 Cal. App. 87, 1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 111
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedMarch 26, 1921
DocketCiv. No. 3477.
StatusPublished

This text of 198 P. 818 (Danton v. Haas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Danton v. Haas, 198 P. 818, 52 Cal. App. 87, 1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 111 (Cal. Ct. App. 1921).

Opinion

CONREY, P. J.

The New York Foundling Hospital is a corporation of the state of New York. Its charter was amended by chapter 635, Laws of New York, of the year 1872, which statute was in force at all times herein mentioned. That law authorized the corporation to receive and keep under its care, charge, custody, and management, certain classes of children. The corporation was given power, when children in their care attained a proper age, to place them at suitable employments and cause them to be instructed in suitable branches of knowledge, and had discretion to bind out or indenture such children as clerks, apprentices, or servants, to some profession, trade, or employment, for such time or period as they may deem proper, not exceeding, however, in the case • of girls, the age of eighteen years. Section 6 reads as follows: “In the case of the death of any master to whom any child shall have been bound to service under the provisions of this act . . . then such death shall have the effect to cancel and annul the indenture or contract of service; and thereupon the said corporation shall resume the charge and management of such child and have the same power and authority with regard to it as before the indenture or contract of service was made.”

On the twenty-ninth day of June, 1912, the hospital had in its care and custody the plaintiff, Beatrice Danton, then three years of age. On that day, by an agreement in writing entered into between said hospital and Rosa Von Zimmerman, the hospital, as party of the first part, placed and indentured the said Beatrice Danton to Rosa Von Zimmerman, as party of the second part, “as her own child in every respect until the said Beatrice Danton shall arrive at her *89 legal majority, to live with, and be employed by the said party of the second part in and about her house and household, and the affairs thereof, and to be instructed therein and also as hereinafter specified ...” The party of the second part agreed, among other things: “I. That during all the time aforesaid Baroness Rosa Yon Zimmerman will provide .said Beatrice Danton. with suitable and proper board, lodging and medical attendance, and all things necessary and fit for any indentured child, and in all respects similar to what would ordinarily be provided and allowed by the said party of the second part, or one in her station of life, for her own child or children. If the said child is returned to the party of the first part when she shall reach her legal majority then the party of the second part shall give to said child a new Bible, a complete suit of new clothes, together with all those she shall then have in use, and an outfit of at least the same in every respect as their own child.” II. To provide for the education and instruction of the minor, as stated, “and generally that said child shall be maintained, clothed, educated and treated with like care and tenderness as if she were in fact the child of the party of the second part and will provide for said child, financially and in every other way, as if the said child were adopted by the said party of the second part under the laws of the state of New York.” YIII. It was further provided that if the child be not returned to the party of the first part when she attains her legal majority, or before that time, and the agreement of indenture canceled and annulled by consent of both parties, the party of the second part agreed to provide for said child as follows: “If said child shall attain the age of eighteen years, the party of the second part agrees, in consideration of this indenture and of being permitted by the party of the first part to keep said child, to create a trust fund of fifteen thousand dollars, said fifteen thousand dollars to be deposited with I. & W. Seligman, of New York City, as Trustee. The interest of said trust fund of fifteen thousand dollars is to be devoted by the said trustee to the care and maintenance and education of said Beatrice Danton until the said Beatrice Danton shall attain the age of thirty, at which time the ■ principal and any accumulations of interest are to be paid over to her.” “IX. And the party of the second part *90 further agrees that her last will and testament shall contain a provision giving and bequeathing to the said Beatrice Danton a further sum of fifteen thousand dollars. In the event of the death of the party of the second part before the said Beatrice Danton shall attain the age of thirty, said sum of fifteen thousand dollars is to be deposited with the I. & W. Seligman, and the interest devoted to the care and maintenance of Beatrice Danton until she shall attain the age of thirty, when the principal and any accumulations of interest shall be given to her.”

After the indenture had been made, Rosa Von Zimmerman took Beatrice Danton into her possession and brought her to the county of Los Angeles, state of California, where they resided until the death of the Baroness Von Zimmerman, which occurred on the twenty-fifth day of April, 1917. The baroness left an estate of large value, apparently sufficient to satisfy the claims at issue in this action. After the twenty-fifth day of April, 1917, the Title Insurance & Trust Company, a corporation, was duly appointed guardian of the estate of said minor, and as such guardian presented two claims against the estate of Rosa Von Zimmerman, one for fifty thousand dollars, to provide maintenance and care for' said minor until she should reach her majority, and another for thirty thousand dollars, fifteen thousand dollars thereof to be placed in trust with I. & W. Seligman of New York, and fifteen thousand dollars which it was alleged that under said agreement Rosa Von Zimmerman agreed , should be provided in her will to and for the benefit of said Beatrice Danton. The claim for fifty thousand dollars was rejected. The claim for thirty thousand dollars was allowed and paid as to the fifteen thousand dollars agreed to be provided by the will of the deceased, and as to the remainder of the thirty thousand dollar claim the claim was rejected. The will of Rosa Von Zimmerman made no provision for said Beatrice Danton. This action to recover upon' the rejected claims was brought by the guardian against the executors and the beneficiaries named- in the will of the deceased. Answer having been made denying all the material allegations of the complaint, the case went to trial. At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence a motion for nonsuit was granted and judgment entered in favor pf defendants. From this judgment the plaintiff appeals.

*91 The facts are not in dispute. The questions upon which the appeal rests are questions of law, and of interpretation of the contract, the answers to which will determine the rights of the plaintiff to the relief demanded.

The terms of the indenture which provide for instruction to be given to the minor were placed therein pursuant to the statute mentioned above, together with certain other statutes, all of which were mentioned in the articles of indenture. These statutes were by stipulation introduced into the record as admitted facts of this case. Aside from the provisions of section 6 of chapter 635, which we have stated, the only other provision relating to the education of indentured children, in the statutes referred to in the contract, is contained in chapter 14 of the Consolidated Laws, Domestic Relations Laws, article VIII, paragraph 121, of the state of New York.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
198 P. 818, 52 Cal. App. 87, 1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/danton-v-haas-calctapp-1921.