50 N.E. 68 (Ind. 1898), 18,336, Walker v. Walker

Docket Nº18,336
Citation50 N.E. 68, 150 Ind. 317
Opinion JudgeJordan, J.
Party NameWalker et al. v. Walker et al
AttorneySamuel A. Wray and Richard A. Black, for appellants. Marsh & Cook and Felt & Jackson, for appellees.
Case DateApril 21, 1898
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 68

50 N.E. 68 (Ind. 1898)

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

[150 Ind. 318] 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 [150 Ind. 319] 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

Page 69

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 [150 Ind. 320] 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 practice notes
  • 67 N.E. 1018 (Ind.App. 1903), 4,317, Spencer v. Spencer
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 23, 1903
    ...matter by the court forever puts it at rest. See Fischli v. Fischli, 1 Blackf. 360, 12 Am. Dec. 251; [31 Ind.App. 331] Walker v. Walker, 150 Ind. 317, 50 N.E. 68, and cases cited; Beaver v. Irwin, 6 Ind.App. 285, 33 N.E. 462; Steves v. Frazee, 19 Ind.App. 284, 49 N.E. 385; Hart v. Moulton, ......
  • 74 N.E. 1008 (Ind.App. 1905), 5,400, Smith v. Smith
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 7, 1905
    ...proceeding the effect of a decree for alimony is an adjustment of all property rights between the parties. Walker v. Walker (1898), 150 Ind. 317, 50 N.E. 68; Hilbish v. Hattle (1896), 145 Ind. 59, 33 L. R. A. 783, 44 N.E. 20; Murray v. Murray (1899), 153 Ind. 14, 53 N.E. 946. In the first p......
  • 277 N.E.2d 802 (Ind.App. 1972), 971A177, Stigall v. Stigall
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 2, 1972
    ...the other hand, in Miller v. Miller, supra, the court stated: "* * * As was said in the case of Walker et al. v. Walker et al., 1898, 150 Ind. 317, 328, 50 N.E. 68, 71: "'Where the wife proves recreant to her marriage obligations, and has destroyed the marital union by acts of adu......
  • 92 S.W. 637 (Mo. 1906), O'Day v. Meadows
    • United States
    • Missouri United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 6, 1906
    ...P. 808; Thompson v. Thompson (Ind.), 31 N.E. 529; Rose v. Rose, 93 Ind. 179; Mucklenberg v. Holler, 29 Ind. 139; Walker v. Walker (Ind.), 50 N.E. 68; Natcher v. Clark (Ind.), 51 N.E. 468; Gallagher v. Gallagher (Wis.), 77 N.W. 145; Murray v. Murray (Ind.), 53 N.E. 946; Weidman v. Weidman (O......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
36 cases
  • 67 N.E. 1018 (Ind.App. 1903), 4,317, Spencer v. Spencer
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 23, 1903
    ...matter by the court forever puts it at rest. See Fischli v. Fischli, 1 Blackf. 360, 12 Am. Dec. 251; [31 Ind.App. 331] Walker v. Walker, 150 Ind. 317, 50 N.E. 68, and cases cited; Beaver v. Irwin, 6 Ind.App. 285, 33 N.E. 462; Steves v. Frazee, 19 Ind.App. 284, 49 N.E. 385; Hart v. Moulton, ......
  • 74 N.E. 1008 (Ind.App. 1905), 5,400, Smith v. Smith
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 7, 1905
    ...proceeding the effect of a decree for alimony is an adjustment of all property rights between the parties. Walker v. Walker (1898), 150 Ind. 317, 50 N.E. 68; Hilbish v. Hattle (1896), 145 Ind. 59, 33 L. R. A. 783, 44 N.E. 20; Murray v. Murray (1899), 153 Ind. 14, 53 N.E. 946. In the first p......
  • 277 N.E.2d 802 (Ind.App. 1972), 971A177, Stigall v. Stigall
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 2, 1972
    ...the other hand, in Miller v. Miller, supra, the court stated: "* * * As was said in the case of Walker et al. v. Walker et al., 1898, 150 Ind. 317, 328, 50 N.E. 68, 71: "'Where the wife proves recreant to her marriage obligations, and has destroyed the marital union by acts of adu......
  • 92 S.W. 637 (Mo. 1906), O'Day v. Meadows
    • United States
    • Missouri United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 6, 1906
    ...P. 808; Thompson v. Thompson (Ind.), 31 N.E. 529; Rose v. Rose, 93 Ind. 179; Mucklenberg v. Holler, 29 Ind. 139; Walker v. Walker (Ind.), 50 N.E. 68; Natcher v. Clark (Ind.), 51 N.E. 468; Gallagher v. Gallagher (Wis.), 77 N.W. 145; Murray v. Murray (Ind.), 53 N.E. 946; Weidman v. Weidman (O......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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