Anderson, &c. v. Cranmer

• Decision Date: 17 November 1877
• Citation: 11 W.Va. 562
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: Anderson, &c. v. Cranmer et ah(Absent. Haymond, Judge).

11 W.Va. 562

Anderson, &c.

v. Cranmer et ah(Absent. Haymond, Judge).

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Decided November 17, 1877.

1. Mrs. A the wife of A., deceased, as the next friend of her two infant children, only heirs-at-law of A., institutes a suit in chancery, to set aside a deed of trust, executed by A. in his lifetime to G. L. C, as trustee, to secure a debt due to C, on the ground that at the time the deed was executed, A. was insane. C. and G. L. C. were sworn as witnesses in their own behalf, and proved that at the time the deed was executed, they both being present, the said A. was of sound mind, and this opinion they base upon his conduct and conversation at the time and before. Held:

I. That under the second exception to section 2 of chapter 180 of the Code the evidence is inadmissible.

II. That such witnesses under said exception were incompetent to give any opinions as to the grantor's sanity, based on any transaction or conversations had with him personally at that or any other time.

2. The point of time to be looked to by the court or jury, in determining the competency of a grantor to make a deed, is that, when the deed was executed; but the condition of the grantor's mind, both before and after the execution of the deed, is proper to be considered, in determining what was his mental condition at the time the deed was executed.

3. The presumption of law is always in favor of the sanity, at the time the deed was executed, of a person whose deed is brought in question; and the burden of proof then lies upon him who asserts unsoundness of mind, unless a previous state of insanity has been established: in which case the burden is shifted to him, who claims under the deed.

4. The chancellor may, in the exercise of his discretion, either di- rect an issue or refuse to do so; but this discretion must be, properly exercised; and a mistake in its exercise is just ground-of appeal.

5. Where there is such a conflict of evidence, that it is so nearly balanced, as to make it doubtful on which side is the preponderance, an issue ought to be directed; but where, though there be a conflict, it is not of such a character, no issue ought to be ordered.

6. Such doubt in the mind of the chancellor must not be a factitious but a reasonable one; justified by such conflict of the evidence.

7. Even after a verdict is rendered by a jury on an issue out of chancery, if upon the proofs, as they stood at the hearing, an issue ought not to have been ordered, it is the duty of the chancellor, notwithstanding the verdict, to set aside the order directing the issue, and enter a decree on the merits, as disclosed by the proofs on the hearing when the issue was ordered,

8. It is the duty of an appellate court in reviewing a decree founded on the verdict of a jury, rendered on an issue out of chancery, to look to the state of the proofs, at the time the issue was ordered; and if satisfied i hat the chancellor has improperly exercised his discretion in directing the issue, to render a decree, notwithstanding the verdict, according to the merits as disclosed by the proofs on the hearing, when the issue was ordered.

Appeal from, and supersedeas to, a decree of the circuit court of Ohio county, rendered on the 7th day of February 1876, in a cause in chancery, in said court then pending, wherein Mary Anderson, as next friend of John Anderson and Lavinia Anderson, was plaintiff, and Gibson L. Cranmer, Alexander Carson and Charles Watkins were defendants, allowed upon the petition of the said plaintiff below.

Hon. T. Melvin, Judge of the first judicial circuit, rendered the decree below.

Johnson, Judge, who delivered the opinion of the Court, furnishes the following statement of the case:

This is an appeal from a final decree, rendered by the circuit court of Ohio county on the 7th day of February 1876. The bill was filed on the 10th day of October 1874 by Mary Anderson, as mother and next friend of her infant children, John Anderson and Lavinia Anderson, The bill alleges that said infants are the children of said Mary and her husband, Samuel Anderson; that said Samuel died in the month of August 1873; that on the 7th day of May 1873, said Anderson conveyed lot No. 64 in Zane's addition to the city of Wheeling, to Gibson L. Oranmer, in trust, to secure to Alexander Carson the payment of a note of S1, 152.00; that at the time of the making of said note and deed of trust, the said Samuel Anderson was, and had been for some time previous, notoriously insane; and he was shortly afterwards committed to the jail of Ohio county as a lunatic; that said Anderson never received any consideration for said note, or deed of trust; that said trustee had advertised the property for sale under said trust and was then crying the sale at the court house door. The bill prayed that the proper parties should be made defendants thereto and for an injunction to said sale.

On the same day the bill was sworn to: after which an amendment was made thereto, which showed, that since the bill was partly prepared, and the complainant was making every effort to complete it in time to prevent the sale, the said Gibson L. Oranmer, knowing of the intention of complainant to apply for an injunction, and desiring to hasten the sale, in order to complete it before the injunction could be obtained, sold the said property to Charles Watkins for $1,850.00; that said "Watkins, Oranmer and Carson all knew of the insanity of Samuel Anderson at the time of making the said deed of trust; that the property is worth at least $3,000.00, and could have been made to bring much more than $1,800.00 had the sale not been unduly hastened. The prayer of the bill was that said Watkins also be made a party to the bill; that Oranmer might be enjoined from completing said sale, and said Watkins from paying him the purchase money; or if part of the purchase money had been paid, that said Cranmer might be enjoined from paying it to Carson or anyone else; that said deed of trust and the sale under it, be declared void; and for general relief. The bill was duly sworn to by the complainant.

On the 10th day of October 1874 the injunction was granted as prayed for. The deed of trust is filed as an exhibit with the bill, and shows it was acknowledged before the clerk of the county court on the day it bore date. The summons with the injunction indorsed thereon was duly served on all the defendants on the day it issued, to-wit: the 10th day of October 1874, the day the sale was made.

At December rules 1874 the defendant, Carson, filed his answer, in which he denies all the material allegations of the bill touching the insanity of Samuel Anderson, and the amount of consideration of the note secured by the deed of trust.

The defendant, G. L. Cranmer, filed his answer to the bill in court, in which he denies that Samuel Anderson was insane at the time the trust was executed; denies any undue haste in selling said property and denies that he knew at the time that an injunction was being obtained to restrain the selling of the same.

The defendant, Watkins, did not answer the bill.

On the 19th day of June 1875," The case came on to be heard upon the process and return thereon, the bill taken for confessed as to Charles Watkins, the answer of Alexander Carson and Gibson L. Cranmer, the complainant's replications to said answers, and the depositions and exhibits heretofore filed in the cause. Upon consideration whereof the court doth order, that a jury be empaneled at the bar of the court, to ascertain and deC termine by their verdict the issue, whether at the time of making the deed of trust to Gibson L. Cranmer, on the 7th day of May 1873, Samuel Anderson, deceased, was of sane mind. On the trial of which issue the said Gibson L. Cranmer and Alexander Carson shall be plaintiffs, and the said Mary Anderson as next friend of John Ander- son and Lavinia Anderson, infants, shall be defendants and on the trial of the said issue, the witnesses shall be produced in open court, except that the depositions of witnesses, who may at the time be out of the jurisdiction of this court or unable to attend, maybe read. The said Oranmer and Carson by their solicitors except to the order of the court directing an issue in this cause, and the said Mary Anderson, as next friend as aforesaid, excepts to her being made defendant instead of plaintiff upon the trial of the said issue." On the 5th day of November 1875 a jury was impaneled to try said issue. On the 13th day of November 1875, the jury being unable to agree were discharged, and the cause continued.

On the 12th day of January 1876 another jury was impaneled to try the said issue. On the 17th of January 1876 the said jury rendered the following verdict: "We, the jury, find that Samuel Anderson, deceased, was on the 7th day of May 1873, the date.of the execution of the deed in controversy, of sane mind."

On the 22d of January 1876 upon the court overruling a motion for a new trial, which had been made when the verdict was rendered, the plaintiff, as next friend, &c, by her counsel, moved the court to disregard the verdict of the jury, and decree according to the prayer of the bill, which the court refused to do.

On the 7th of February 1876 by a decree, that day rendered, the court dissolved the injunction and dismissed the bill. From and to this decree an appeal and supersedeas was allowed. At the time the issue was ordered the proof stood substantially as follows:

For the Plaintiff.

George Swindler Was accpiainted with grantee about six years, thought lie was crazy; had been at work for him, and thought he was crazy from about the 1st of April 1873; continued working for him until in June; his reasons for his belief were: saw him many a time start to town with but one shoe on, and no coat or hat, had to go and bring him back, would come for no one else; saw him also sharpening knives and hatchets; seldom saw him without a knife or hatchet in his...