Walker v. Walker

• Decision Date: 21 April 1898
• Docket Number: 18,336
• Citation: 50 N.E. 68,150 Ind. 317
• Parties: Walker et al. v. Walker et al
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

50 N.E. 68

150 Ind. 317

Walker et al. v. Walker et al

No. 18,336

Supreme Court of Indiana

April 21, 1898

From the Hancock Circuit Court.

Affirmed.

Samuel A. Wray and Richard A. Black, for appellants.

Marsh & Cook and Felt & Jackson, for appellees.

OPINION

Jordan, J.

Thomas Walker, as guardian of William C. Walker, a person of unsound mind, filed his complaint in three paragraphs, and on the 15th day of December, 1896, instituted this action against Gussie M. Walker, William C. Dudding, and William H. Moore the appellees in this appeal, whereby he sought to set aside a certain antenuptial contract, together with certain deeds executed by his said ward prior to his being adjudged a person of unsound mind, and to quiet the title to the real estate described in the complaint. Copies of the deeds involved in the action are filed as exhibits. The material facts disclosed by the first paragraph of the complaint and the exhibits filed therewith, may be summarized as follows Some time in 1896 (the exact date is not stated) William C Walker, the ward, was adjudged by the court to be a person of unsound mind, and plaintiff was appointed his guardian. On and prior to May 28, 1894, said Walker was the owner in fee simple of the lands mentioned in the complaint. Prior to March 16, 1894, Walker's wife died, and, after living as a widower for some time, he became desirous of again marrying, and formed the acquaintance of Gussie M. Wachestetter, who was his junior by many years, and whose character, as is averred, at that time was bad. Soon after becoming acquainted with this woman, William C. Walker, who was then an old man, as is alleged, feeble in body and mind, invited her to come to his home and reside, which she did, and there lived as a member of his family for about a month, during which time he proposed to her that she marry him, which proposition she accepted, and accordingly on the 16th day of March, 1894, they were married at Hancock county, Indiana, and became husband and wife. During the time said Gussie M. resided in the family of William C. Walker, prior to his marriage to her, it is charged that he was under her influence and control, and by means thereof she wrongfully caused and induced him to execute an antenuptial contract, whereby he agreed and promised to convey to her eighty acres of his land, being a part of the real estate in suit, and it is alleged that in consideration thereof she agreed to marry him and live with him as a true and loving wife, and to care for him as long as he should live. After their said marriage it appears that Walker and his wife moved onto the land in controversy, and she then began to persuade and to induce him to convey the same to her, and finally procured him, on the said 28th day of May, 1894, by warranty deed, to convey to her the lands in dispute. The real estate so conveyed to her embraced the eighty acres mentioned in the antenuptial contract, and thirty-six acres in addition thereto. It is also alleged that at the time William C. Walker executed this deed to his wife he was old, and weak in both body and mind, and that she procured him to execute the same by means of promises, persuasions and threats. The deed recites that it is executed by the husband to his said wife in consideration of love and affection, and is made in pursuance to the antenuptial contract existing between the parties, and that the purpose of said conveyance was to vest at the time in the wife the real estate thereby conveyed; and the deed further provided that in consideration of the thirty-six acres conveyed in addition to the eighty acres, that the grantee, or wife, in the event of the death of the grantor, her husband, was not to be entitled to claim or receive any sum or consideration out of the estate of the grantor, as his widow or otherwise. It is further provided therein that in the event the grantee should not live with the grantor, or should abandon him without just cause, and refuse to take care of him, as stipulated in the antenuptial contract, then the conveyance was to be void and the title to the real estate was to vest in the grantor. It was also provided in the deed that the antenuptial contract was to be continued in force, except as modified by the stipulations in said deed. It is alleged that a short time after the execution of this deed to his wife, Walker became of unsound mind, and has so continued, and while in said condition, on December 3, 1894, his wife sold the real estate to the defendants, Dudding and Moore, and by warranty deed, in which he as her husband joined, conveyed the same to these parties, who have ever since held it, and now claim to be the owners thereof. It is charged that the consideration for the conveyance of the said real estate, paid by Dudding and Moore, was received by the wife, and no part of the same was ever paid to the husband. It appears, however, by the stipulations and terms of the deed of Walker and wife to these defendants that the land was conveyed to them subject to certain encumbrances therein mentioned, which they agreed to pay and satisfy. It also appears that after the execution of the deed to Dudding and Moore by Walker and wife, that she deported herself in an unchaste manner, and failed to comply with the terms of the antenuptial contract or with the terms of said deed of conveyance, and finally left and abandoned her said husband. It is also alleged that the defendants, Dudding and Moore, at the time of the conveyance of said real estate to them, knew of the provisions and stipulations contained in both the antenuptial contract and the deed of Walker to his said wife, and knew that she had violated the same, and a disaffirmance of the deed by the guardian is alleged, and the prayer is that the antenuptial contract and the deeds in controversy be set aside, and that the title to the lands be quieted in the plaintiff.

The facts averred by the second and third paragraphs are in the main similar to those alleged in the first, except in the second it is charged that the plaintiff's ward, at and before the execution of the antenuptial contract, and at the time of his said marriage to the defendant Gussie M. Walker, was a person of unsound mind, and so continued to the commencement of this action.

The third paragraph avers a breach of the antenuptial contract on the part of the wife, and also her failure to comply with the provisions and stipulations contained in the deed of conveyance to her, and it is therefore sought to set aside each of these instruments.

Appellees unsuccessfully demurred to each paragraph of this complaint and thereafter filed a joint answer in four paragraphs, all of which except the fourth were subsequently withdrawn, and the latter is the only one appearing in the record. This paragraph of answer, after admitting the execution of the antenuptial contract and the deeds in controversy proceeds to allege that while the said William C. and Gussie M. Walker were husband and wife, and while they were living together as such, under and in pursuance of the terms of said antenuptial contract and deed, all of which terms and conditions, it is averred, have been faithfully complied with and performed on the part of the said wife, she and her said husband, William C. Walker, for and in consideration of $ 4,000.00, sold the land set out in the complaint to the defendants, Dudding and Moore, and by warranty deed, in which her husband joined, conveyed the said realty to these defendants, who took possession thereof and have ever since held it in fee simple as their own. It is averred that at the time these lands were sold and conveyed to said defendants the antenuptial contract was voluntarily surrendered by the said William C. Walker and wife to the defendants and delivered up to them for cancelation, and was subsequently destroyed; that after the said conveyance by Walker and wife, at the December term, 1895, of the Hancock Circuit Court, the said William C. Walker instituted an action in said court against his said wife, Gussie M. Walker for a divorce; that she appeared to this action by her attorney and filed her answer in general denial, and that such proceedings were had between the parties in said divorce suit in said court, that on the 5th day of March, 1895, the court rendered its decree in favor of the plaintiff, William C. Walker, granting him a divorce from his said wife; that said decree was absolute and not appealed from, and still remains in full force and effect; that after the execution of the...