Billings v. Mann

• Decision Date: 06 May 1892
• Citation: 156 Mass. 203,30 N.E. 1136
• Parties: BILLINGS et al. v. MANN et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

156 Mass. 203

30 N.E. 1136

BILLINGS et al.

v.MANN et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk.

May 6, 1892.

Case reserved from supreme judicial court, Norfolk county; JOHN LATHROP, Judge.

Bill in equity by Maria J. Billings and others, daughters of Minerva Mann, deceased, against Asel W. Mann and others, for the cancellation of a deed by said decedent on the ground of fraud, undue influence, and insanity.Defendant answered denying the allegations of insanity and undue influence, and also demurred.The case was reserved.Demurrer overruled.

The bill of plaintiffs, daughters of Minerva Mann, deceased, alleged that said Minerva, on December 3, 1888, executed to the defendant Asel a deed of land in Bellingham; that at the time the said Minerva was an insane person, incapable of managing her affairs, which said Asel well knew, and that the latter took advantage of the condition of said Minerva, and that the deed was without consideration; that the plaintiffs, when they learned of their mother's condition, applied to the probate court, and the latter appointed a guardian over said Minerva; that the latter appealed from said decision, and while said appeal was pending died.The bill asked that the deed be canceled as obtained by the undue influence and coercion of said Asel from said Minerva while the latter was insane.The defendants filed an answer denying the allegations of insanity and undue influence, and also filed a demurrer.

Carpenter & Towle, for plaintiffs.

H.E. Fales and S.H. Tyng, for defendants.

HOLMES, J.

In England, in the case of a conveyance of real estate induced by fraud or duress, when the grounds of avoidance go only to the motives for the conveyance, and therefore make it voidable only, (Fairbanks v. Snow, 145 Mass. 153, 154, 13 N.E.Rep. 596,) as distinguished from defects in the form, which make it void, (Rodliff v. Dallinger, 141 Mass. 1, 4 N.E.Rep. 805,) a resort to equity has been thought not only proper, but necessary, the title being supposed to be unaffected by anything short of a reconveyance.Feret v. Hill, 15 C.B. 207.SeeMitchell v. Moore, 24 Iowa, 394;Lombard v. Cowham, 34 Wis. 486;George v. Tate, 102 U.S. 564, 570.We see no reason to be dissatisfied with the Massachusetts doctrine that a deed avoided for fraud or duress is as if it never had been; that the title is in the grantor, without more, from the moment of avoidance, as in the case of chattels; and that, therefore, when the defendant is in possession of the land so that a writ of entry is available, there is a remedy at law,-a doctrine not without the sanction of history and of English decisions.Pratt v. Pond, 5 Allen, 59;Bassett v. Brown, 100 Mass. 355; Sparkesford v. Potney, Abbr.Plac. 271, (col. 2, Somerset;) Bates v. Graves, 2 Ves.Jr. 287, 295.SeeBallou v. Billings.136 Mass. 307, 309.But, on the other hand, a majority of the court see no reason to doubt that since the act of 1877, c. 178, (now Pub.St. c. 151, § 4,¹a plaintiff may bring a bill in equity, if he prefers it, as well in Massachusetts as in other states, the federal courts, or in England, to have the deed declared void, and for a reconveyance, and that his right to a real action does not exclude this concurrent remedy, which will give him a title good on the face of the deeds.Chase v. Hubbard, 153 Mass. 91, 26 N.E.Rep. 433;Stratton v. Hernon, (Mass.)28 N.E.Rep. 269;Harding v. Handy, 11 Wheat. 103, 125;Allore v. Jewell, 94 U.S. 506;Baker v. Monk, 33 Beav. 419.In the case at bar it is alleged that the grantor was insane, as well as coerced, and insanity seems to be regarded as having so much greater effect than fraud as to make a deed...