Blount v. Spratt

Decision Date19 December 1892
PartiesBlount, by Guardian, v. Spratt et al., Appellants
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court.--Hon. Henry M. Ramey, Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

Hall & Pike for appellants.

(1) The deed to Ashton was made before office found, and, as he acted in good faith and without knowledge of plaintiff's incapacity, she could not avoid the deed without tendering back the consideration received by her, or paid out for her benefit. Boyer v. Benyman, 123 Ind. 451; Copenrath v. Kienby, 83 Ind. 18; Eaton v. Eaton 8 Vroom. (N. J.), 108; Riggan v. Green, 80 N Car. 236; 1 Story on Equity Jurisprudence, sec. 228; 2 Pomeroy on Equity Jurisprudence, sec. 946; 11 American & English Encyclopedia of Law, 136; Wirebach v. Bank, 97 Pa. St. 549; Beals v. Lee, 10 Barr (Pa.), 56; Gibben v. Maxwell, 34 Kan. 8; Ins. Co. v Hunt, 79 N.Y. 541; Burnham v. Kidwell, 113 Ill. 425. The amount required to pay the balance due Hubbard, it is expressly found was paid for the benefit of plaintiff, and, at least that amount should be required to be returned by her before she avoids the deed. Kneedler's Appeal, 92 Pa. St., 428. (2) The court did not separately state its conclusions of law except generally that the law of the case was with the plaintiff. However, at the conclusion of the fourth special finding of fact, the deduction is made that the plaintiff was incapable and incompetent to make a contract or deed, because of the unsoundness of mind and insanity previously stated as a finding of fact. That is not the law as an abstract proposition or as applied to this case. An insane man can convey or bind his estate to one who deals with him without knowledge of his insanity, takes no advantage of him, and pays a full consideration which manifestly goes to the benefit of the lunatic. Authorities supra.

Porter & Woodson for respondents.

(1) The evidence has not been preserved and there is nothing for the court to review. All the court's findings may be wrong and yet the decree be supported by the evidence. (2) The deed of trust is valid as to Henry P. Blount and there is nothing in the record to show and no claim is made that his lands are not amply sufficient to pay the debt. (3) When he received the $ 400 borrowed of appellant it was absolutely his, Blount's money, and he had the right to make any disposition of it he pleased, and if he chose to use part of it to discharge Hubbard's debt, equity will not subrogate appellant to Hubbard's rights simply because respondent's land was encumbered. Wilcox v. Todd, 64 Mo. 388; Bunn v. Lindsay, 95 Mo. 251; Van Winkle v. Williams, 38 N.J.Eq. 105; 1 Jones on Mortgages [3 Ed.] sec. 874a.

OPINION

Macfarlane, J.

This is a suit to enjoin defendants from selling under a deed of trust a tract of one hundred and twenty acres of land belonging to the plaintiff, on the ground that she was insane when she executed the deed, and it was, therefore, void.

The petition charges, in substance, that in the year 1881 plaintiff was the wife of Henry P. Blount, and was and still is the owner of one hundred and twenty acres of land (describing it), and was at that time, and ever since has been, and still is of unsound mind and wholly incapable of transacting business; that, on the twenty-seventh day of April, 1888, she joined her husband in executing a deed of trust conveying said land to defendant Spratt to secure the payment to Thomas Ashton of a note of the said Henry C. Blount for $ 400, due one year after date; that the said trustee was threatening a sale of said land under the power contained in said deed. An injunction was prayed, and that the deed of trust be canceled as to said land.

The answer admitted that plaintiff and Henry Blount were husband and wife, and that they executed the deed of trust to secure said note of the husband, but denied all other allegations. The answer set up affirmatively, in substance, that the land in question was bought by the husband of plaintiff, who paid in part therefor with his own means, and he and his wife executed a deed of trust on the land to secure deferred payments and that part of the money loaned, and for which the $ 400 in question was given, was used in payment of a balance due on the note given for said purchase money and secured by said first deed of trust.

After hearing the evidence, none of which is preserved by bill of exceptions, at the request of defendant the court stated in writing the conclusions of facts found as follows:

"First. Elizabeth F. Blount and Henry P. Blount were husband and wife; that on the second day of December, 1888, said Henry P. Blount died, and on the day of December, 1888, said Elizabeth F. Blount was, by the probate court of Buchanan county, Missouri, adjudged insane and incapable of managing her business affairs, and the said Wm. C. Frame was duly appointed guardian and curator of her person and estate, and duly qualified and took charge of her person and estate and has since and is now in charge and control of the same.

"Second. The court, after finding that in 1881 plaintiff Elizabeth Blount became the owner of the land mentioned in the petition, made statements of facts as to special matters set up in the answer, which need not be given, and proceeded.

"Third. That on the twenty-seventh day of April, 1888, the said Henry P. Blount borrowed of defendant Ashton $ 400, and executed and delivered to him his promissory note for that sum, and, to secure the payment of said note, said Henry P. and his wife, Elizabeth, signed and delivered the deed of trust to defendant Spratt, mentioned in the petition and evidence; said deed of trust included and covered the said Elizabeth's one hundred and twenty acres of land mentioned in the petition and other lands belonging to said Henry P. Blount * * *.

"Fourth. The court further finds that at the time said Elizabeth F. Blount signed said deed of trust on her said one hundred and twenty acres of land to secure the payment to said Ashton of said $ 400 note, she was of unsound mind and so insane as to be unable to understand the nature or character of said transaction, and was, on account thereof, incapable and incompetent to make a contract or deed.

"Fifth. The court further finds that at the commencement of this suit the defendant Spratt, at the request of the defendant Ashton, had advertised and was preparing to enforce said deed of trust, and sell said Elizabeth's real estate mentioned in the petition to satisfy and pay said $ 400 note.

"Sixth. That, at the time said Ashton loaned to said Henry P. said $ 400, and took said note and mortgage, he acted in good faith and without any knowledge of the insanity of said Elizabeth F. Blount."

The court then stated its conclusions of law upon these facts as follows: "The court concludes, that, upon the facts found as aforesaid, the law is with the plaintiff, and that decree should be entered as prayed in the petition."

The defendants duly excepted to the conclusions of law made by the court.

The record shows that the special findings of fact were incorporated into and made a part of the judgment. It does not appear what the bill of exceptions contains, but it does appear that plaintiff declined to agree to the bill of exceptions because it did not embody therein the whole of the evidence as required by the rules of this court in equity cases.

A motion to dismiss the appeal or affirm the judgment for the same reason was filed by defendants and is submitted with the main case.

I. A statement in writing of the conclusions of fact found by the court is authorized by section 2135, Revised Statutes of 1889, which is as follows: "Upon the trial of a question of fact by the court, it shall not be necessary for the court to state its finding, except generally, unless one of the parties thereto request it with the view of excepting to the decision of the court upon the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT