Giles v. Hodge

• Decision Date: 24 September 1889
• Parties: GILES v. HODGE ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

74 Wis. 360

43 N.W. 163

GILES

v.HODGE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Sept. 24, 1889.

Appeal from superior court, Milwaukee county; GEORGE H. NOYES, Judge.Turner & Timlin, for appellants.

C. E. Monroe, for respondent.

ORTON, J.

This action was brought by John Giles, by his guardian, to set aside, cancel, and annul two certain deeds, one executed by the said Giles to his daughter Nelly Hodge on the 6th day of June, 1887, of lot 7, in block 13, in the First, but now the Eighteenth, ward of the city of Milwaukee, and the other executed by the same grantor to his daughter Mary Richards, on the same day, of lot 8, in the same block and ward, on the ground that said deeds were procured by fraud and undue influence from the said Giles, he then being incompetent from great mental weakness and incapacity.

The main facts are as follows: John Giles came to Milwaukee about 50 years ago, and has resided there ever since, and at the time of the trial was between 75 and 80 years of age. He was twice married, and by his first wife had three children, who are now living, and are the two defendants, Nellie and Mary, and Annie Donaldson, whose whereabouts is unknown; and by his second wife, Frances, the wife of one Horace Buell. His last wife died in 1881. Up to that time he had been an ordinarily good business man for one of his age, prudent in the care of his property, and close in his bargains, and did a profitable business, and kept himself free from debt, and had $500 in the bank, and frequently expressed a determination to keep all of his property and to dispose of none of it during his life. His disposition and manners were pleasant and agreeable, and he was kind to his family. On the death of his last wife, in 1881, a great change took place in him and his affairs. He sold his personal property with which he had done business, and ceased doing any kind of business. He became morose and cross towards his daughter Frances, and his step-daughter, Mrs. Nagle, who remained with him for a short time. He was offered a home with his children, but preferredto live in his old house alone. He was negligent in the care of his property and of his person. The buildings upon his lots came to be in great want of repair, and his property generally needed improvement, and he paid no attention to it. He was easily imposed upon by those having designs against his money or property. He became involved in debt, and was compelled to sell to his son-in-law, the defendant Hugh Hodge, one of his lots for $455 he had borrowed of him, and for about $745 in cash, which mostly went to pay his debts, and he was afterwards compelled to borrow other sums of money of said Hodge, and finally owed him about $370. He suffered for the want of food and clothing, unless furnished by others. This was his condition as to his property and person on the 6th day of June, 1887, when the said deeds were executed. The two lots at that date were worth $5,000, and improving in value. A short time before that, his daughter Mrs. Buell came home to see her father after three or four years' absence, and he did not know her. She told him that she had come home to take care of him. He said he did not need any care, and he did not want anybody there. Both his house and person were greatly in need of care and cleanliness. On the question of his mental condition and capacity at that time it is needless to make any further special reference to the testimony, and I need only to say of it that we are satisfied that it fully warranted the finding of the superior court that “upon said day [[[the 6th day of June, 1887,] he [Giles] was, and ever since has been, of unsound mind, and by reason of extreme old age, and the impairment of his faculties thereby occasioned, he was, and ever since has been, mentally incompetent to have the charge of his property, or to transact business, and incapable of taking care of himself, and that he has been approaching this condition of mental incompetency for some years prior to said date.”

It is very clear, from the evidence, that Giles had scarcely any memory of even important events of his life,--such as, when he came to Milwaukee, and when his last wife died, and of what she died; and had scarcely any knowledge or recollection of his business transactions or the condition of his affairs. On the 5th day of June, 1887, the said Buell, after ascertaining the condition of his father-in-law, Giles, and of his affairs, and by the concurrence of his wife, determined upon taking the necessary measures to have a guardian of his person and property appointed by the county court. He thereupon called upon his brother-in-law, the said defendant Richards, and consulted him as to the advisability of applying for such appointment. Richards declined having anything to do with it one way or another, but on the same day made the fact known to his wife and the other defendants, that Buell contemplated making such an application. The next morning the said Hodge and Richards, with the knowledge and approval of their wives, went to the house of Giles, in a distant part of the city, and informed him that Buell intended to have a guardian appointed over him, and they advised and thereby induced him to have said deeds executed at once, and they took Giles to their own homes, and, after said deeds were so executed, imposed upon him the condition that he must thereafter and always spend his nights at one of their homes, and they assumed a quasi guardianship over him, and so he has remained. The deed to said Mary Richards contains a nominal consideration of $1,000, and the deed to Nelly Hodge, that of $1,500; but the actual consideration of each one was only $5. The deeds were recorded on the 7th day of June, 1887. There was a vague oral promise on the part of said defendants that they would support Giles during his life, but they were not bound by any formal agreement to do so; and the two grantees had no other property than that conveyed. These are the facts in respect to the inducements and undue influence, and they fully support the finding of the superior court that “Giles did not know the value of the property thereby conveyed to said defendants Nelly and Mary, and did not comprehend, and was not mentally capable of comprehending, the character of the transaction; that the defendants knew of his mental incompetency and his dependent condition, and that he did not treat with them on equal terms; that the consideration for said deeds was wholly inadequate, and the arrangement entered into by said Giles...