In this аction the respondents sought to set aside certain deeds and leases executed March 18, 1908, upon the ground of lack of consideration, fraud, and no compre
The main error assigned is insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings. We cannot go into the record at length and recite the testimony given upon the questions involved, but will set out thе main facts. The respondents were French Canadians, and owned three hundred and twenty acres of land, in Stevens county. David Sanpere was seventy years of age, and his wife some years younger. They were uneducated, unable to read or write the English language, could not write their names, and had little comprehension or conception of transactions of the character here involved. The wife, although she had lived over forty years in Stevens county upon the property in question, knew but little of our language or the use and meaning of words. She refers to such lack of understanding and says: “You see I never talk English before. I start only three or four years ago to talk English. I аlways talk French.” The testimony of both of these old people shows they did not know or appreciate the difference between wills, deeds, and leases, all оf which are involved in this controversy. Referring to a lease given to appellants for ten years, she says: “He makes up some — what you call them? some kind of paper for five years’ work the' ranch.”
The appellants are nephews of David Sanpere, and had only known their uncle for a short time; Guy Sanpair having met respondents in 1905, and Walter in 1907. They lived with their uncle during the winter of 1907 and the spring of 1908, and during that time the old people seem to have become fond of them, to have placed much сonfidence in them, and had frequent conversations with them in regard to leaving some of their property to them. David Sanpere testifies that the boys would frequently ask him to make a will, especially Guy who was very solicitous in this regard. Finally, in March, 1908, the old people seemed to have made up
On March 18, Mrs. Sanpere and Guy started for Kettle Falls to complete the execution of the wills, leaving Mr. Sanperе and Walter to follow later on in the day. When Mrs. Sanpere reached Kettle Falls, she objected to the division under which her daughter would only receive one-third of the property, and announced her intention of giving one-half of the property to the daughter and the other half .to Guy and Walter. The attorney informed them that the wills cоuld not be changed that day, but the same purpose would be effected by giving deeds to the daughter and the boys and taking back life leases, and Guy was sent back to the ranсh for the daughter and a description of the property. When the old .gentleman arrived, he was informed of the new arrangement and, upon his understanding that it would have the sаme effect as the making of wills, he consented to the new plan.
The main controversy arises over what occurred in the attorney’s office. The respondents say they thought the new arrangement was the same as the old; that they could still retain possession and control over the property. It was their understanding that it was another wаy of making a will, and to use the language of the record, the old gentleman thought “if he wanted to break the will, he just threw it in the fire; he didn’t mean to give it for all time.” It is also testified to thаt they were informed by the attorney that they could still sell the land at any time and put the money in the bank.
There can be little doubt from reading the record that the old people executed these deeds and leases under the intention and understanding that they were making a testamentary
Appellants complain of error of the court in not permitting the attorneys who drew up the papers to testify to аll that occurred in their presence, upon the ground that it was privileged. If the record sustained this assignment it would be •error, as under the circumstances there was no privilege. A client cannot testify to what occurred between himself and an attorney, and then prevent the attorney from giving evidence upon the ground of privilege. The client in giving his testimony has robbed the transaction of the essential element of confidential communication, by voluntarily disclosing it; he himself has broken the seal of the privilegе and cannot restore it. Hall & Paulson Furniture Co. v. Wilbur,
There were two attorneys present at the time, and both testified. One detailed the conversation he had with respond
The other attorney testified that he read all the papers to the parties, and that Guy Sanpair also read each paper to all. Counsel for appellants then offered to show that the transaction, its nature, character, and extent, was thoroughly explained and understood by all, to which objection was made as before and, upon the further ground that it called for a conclusion. If the question was propounded in the language of the offer, it would have been subject tо the last objection, and hence properly denied. However, in view of the testimony already given by the partner, its rejection upon any ground would not be regardеd by us as reversible error. We fail to see what either of these attorneys could have testified to that was not, except to. give their conclusions as to the understаnding of the parties, and one of them was even permitted to go as far as that.
The deed to the daughter and the lease of the half conveyed to her are not involved in this appeal, she having consented to the entry of the decree.
Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.
Rudkin, C. J., Chadwick, Gose, and Fullerton, JJ., concur.