Ashmead v. Reynolds

• Decision Date: 09 March 1893
• Docket Number: 16,666
• Citation: 33 N.E. 763,134 Ind. 139
• Parties: Ashmead et al. v. Reynolds et al
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

33 N.E. 763

134 Ind. 139

Ashmead et al. v. Reynolds et al

No. 16,666

Supreme Court of Indiana

March 9, 1893

From the Gibson Circuit Court.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

M. W Fields, J. W. Ewing, C. A. Buskirk and J. W. Brady, for appellants.

A. P Twineham, W. D. Robinson and L. C. Embree, for appellees.

OPINION

Howard, J.

This was an action by appellees against appellants, to set aside deeds and for partition of lands. It is here on appeal for the second time. Ashmead v. Reynolds, 127 Ind. 441, 26 N.E. 80. On the former trial there was a judgment for appellees, which was reversed on the appeal, for the reason that the original complaint did not allege a sufficient disaffirmance of the deeds.

On the return of the case for a re-trial, an amended complaint was filed in two paragraphs. The cause was tried by the court and, at the request of appellants, the court found the facts specially, finding for appellees under the first paragraph of the complaint.

The appellants assign as errors, the overruling of the demurrer to the first paragraph of the complaint, the conclusions of law on the facts found, and the overruling of the motion for a new trial.

The first paragraph of the complaint alleges, that on the 28th day of May, 1888, Joseph H. Reynolds was the owner of the land described in the complaint; that, on said day and for more than six months prior thereto, the said Joseph H Reynolds was more than eighty years old, sick and greatly enfeebled both in body and mind, and by reason thereof easily susceptible to the influence, arts, and persuasions of others, and during said period of time the appellant Joseph R. Ashmead, who was the nephew of said Reynolds, well knowing his weak and enfeebled condition, as aforesaid, and corruptly contriving and intending to profit thereby, and to defraud the said Reynolds out of said farm, made frequent visits to him, and by means of continuous, persistent, and undue persuasion and importunity, and undue, corrupt, and overpowering influence exercised by the said Ashmead over and upon the said Reynolds, so wrought upon the mind and inclinations of said Reynolds that on said day the said Ashmead procured from said Reynolds an agreement in writing whereby said Reynolds agreed and undertook--without any consideration therefor whatever at the time paid or given by the said Ashmead, and without the said Ashmead having promised or agreed to return or pay any reasonable or adequate consideration therefor--to convey to said Ashmead the lands and farm aforesaid; and pursuant to said agreement, and by the means aforesaid, said Ashmead on said day procured from said Reynolds, in consummation of said agreement, certain deeds of conveyance, which were then executed by said Reynolds to said Ashmead, and which purported to convey in fee simple said lands to said Ashmead; nor has said Ashmead ever paid or given any consideration for said deeds whatever; that at the time of the execution of the agreement and conveyances the lands were of the value of $ 9,000; that neither said agreement nor said deeds were the act or deed of said Reynolds, but were procured by said Ashmead through the corrupt, fraudulent and dishonest practices and means aforesaid, by which the will and intent of said Reynolds were by the said Ashmead wholly overpowered and controlled; that at said time said Reynolds had many relatives who were nearer of kin to him than the said Ashmead, and were the proper subjects of his bounty, which relatives and their descendants are the appellees; that afterwards, on the 18th day of August, 1888, the said Reynolds departed this life intestate, leaving as his sole heirs the appellees, and said appellant; that after his death, and prior to the commencement of this action, appellees disaffirmed said deeds and agreement, and notified said Ashmead that the same had been procured by fraud and the undue practices and influences aforesaid, and that they refused to be bound by the same, whereupon said Ashmead declared that he was the exclusive owner of said lands by virtue of said deeds; that he had it solid and proposed to hold the same; setting out also the respective ownerships of the parties to said lands, and praying the cancellation of said deeds and for partition.

The court below held this complaint sufficient. Appellants contend that it is not, claiming that the facts constituting undue influence and fraud are not sufficiently stated. The allegations in this respect are that Reynolds was greatly enfeebled in mind and body, and over eighty years of age when he made the deeds, and that he died between two and three months thereafter. That his feeble condition of mind and body had existed for six months before the time of making the deeds, rendering him easily influenced by others, and that during this period Ashmead, who was the nephew of Reynolds, well knowing his weak and enfeebled condition, corruptly contriving and intending to profit thereby, and to defraud Reynolds of his said farm, made frequent visits to him, and by means of continuous, persistent, and undue persuasion and importunity, and undue overpowering influence, so wrought upon the mind of Reynolds as to persuade him to deed, without consideration, his farm then worth $ 9,000; that said deeds were not the act or deed of Reynolds, but of Ashmead, by whom the will and intent of Reynolds were wholly overpowered and controlled.

In Wray v. Wray, 32 Ind. 126, the following is quoted and approved: "Where a party is weak and enfeebled in mind by reason of age, or from any other cause, and another takes advantage of such weakness, and by any artifice, or cunning, or undue influence he may possess, or by any improper practices, induces such person to execute a contract which in the free use and exercise of his deliberate judgment he would not have entered into, such a contract would be set aside for fraud."

In 8 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law, 649, undue influence is defined to be "Any improper or wrongful constraint, machination, or urgency of persuasion whereby the will of a person is overpowered, and he is induced to do or forbear an act which he would not do, or would do, if left to act freely. It generally occurs where one of the parties is weak in intellect or so situated or related to the other as to be peculiarly under his influence. 'It matters not what the relation is, if confidence is reposed and influence obtained.'" And the same authority, in a note, adds: "Where one of the parties is very old and feeble, illiterate, weak-minded, or intoxicated, very slight additional circumstances of suspicion will cast the burden on the other party."

In Allore v. Jewell, 94 U.S. 506, 24 L.Ed 260, a case similar to this, Mr. Justice Field, speaking for the court, said: "It is not necessary, in order to secure the aid of equity,...