Arnold v. Whitcomb

• Decision Date: 31 October 1890
• Citation: 46 N.W. 1029,83 Mich. 19
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: ARNOLD v. WHITCOMB et al.

46 N.W. 1029

83 Mich. 19

ARNOLD v. WHITCOMB et al.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 31, 1890

Appeal from circuit court, Branch county, in chancery.

Milo D. Campbell and Clayton C Johnson, for appellant Whitcomb. John B. Shipran, for appellee.

GRANT, J.

The complainant is a widow, and was about 84 years old at the time the bill was filed. Her husband's estate had been divided between herself and their children. The land here in dispute was assigned to her. She was the owner in fee-simple. The defendant Whitcomb is her grandson, and at the time of the transaction referred to in the bill of complaint was about 20 years old. His mother became insane when he was a child, and has ever since been confined in an asylum. The complainant took him to live with her, brought him up, and except one short absence, he lived with her till the commencement of this suit. In the spring of 1888 he was about to go to Dakota, where he had been a portion of the previous year. About this time she was taken sick, and at her solicitation he remained at home. On the 30th of April, 1888 she executed to him a warranty deed of the land in question. He at the same time signed and delivered to her a life-lease of the premises, which gave her the absolute possession control, use, and all the rents and profits of the land. She soon recovered from her sickness, and they continued to live together until he was married in the fall of 1888. After the marriage they still lived together for a while, but finally she lived by herself in one part of the house and he and his wife in the other. The deed was properly executed and recorded. The lease was not acknowledged by him but was delivered. February 27, 1889, she, by her solicitor, filed this bill, praying that the deed might be set aside, and alleging, according to her recollection, it was not read to her, and if it was, being deaf, that she did not understand it; that she did not know what kind of a paper she signed, nor what its purport was, but that she was told that she could revoke it, set it aside, and take possession of the property at any time she saw fit; and that she was incompetent at the time either to make any such agreement, or to sign such paper, or to enter into any business transaction, and did not then know what she had done. Defendant Wait was a mortgagee of the defendant Whitcomb, the mortgage being for $300, and executed subsequent to the deed. Proofs were taken and decree rendered for complainant. The circuit judge filed a written opinion in which he says that the mind of complainant, for a person of her age, is vigorous and strong; that she realized that she was making a conveyance, but supposed it was of such a nature that she could at any time recall it; that her mind was weakened and impaired by her long and severe illness, and that she did not fully understand and comprehend the effect of the business she was transacting. ...