Black v. Post
| Decision Date | 22 March 1910 |
| Citation | 67 S.E. 1072,67 W.Va. 253 |
| Parties | BLACK v. POST et al. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Rehearing denied May 18, 1910.
Syllabus by the Court.
The law presumes that the grantor is sane and possessed of sufficient mental capacity to make a deed at the time of its execution and the burden of proving that he was not then sane, or competent, is on the one attacking its validity.
If a person is capable of knowing the nature, character, and effect of his deed at the time of making it, he is considered as legally compos mentis.
Eccentricity of manner and mental weakness of the grantor which does not amount to imbecility are not sufficient to overthrow a deed in the absence of proof of fraud in its procurement.
Fraud will not be inferred from proof of the mere opportunity to commit it; there must be evidence of actual fraud; this evidence may be either direct or circumstantial, and, if circumstantial, the facts and circumstances relied on to establish fraud must be inconsistent with fair dealing.
(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
A promise to support the grantor, then 63 years old, as long as she lived, supply her with medical attention, and at her death give her a respectable burial, and to give her two grandchildren $500 each, was not such an inadequate consideration for a deed to land worth about $4,500 as to warrant setting aside the deed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Upshur County.
Action by Rebecca Black against A. V. Post and others. Pending suit plaintiff died, and Jane Bonnell was substituted in her stead. Judgment for plaintiff, and the mentioned defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
H. Roy Waugh and C. M. Murphy, for appellant.
U. G Young and W. S. O'Brien, for appellee.
Rebecca Black owned a tract of 140 acres of land in Upshur county, and on the 25th of December, 1906, conveyed it to her nephew, A. V. Post, in consideration that he would support her while she lived, supply her with medical attention in case of sickness, and at her death give her a respectable burial, and in further consideration that he would pay to Rosie Bonnell and Charley Bonnell, her grandchildren who were then infants about the age of 13 and 16 years, respectively, $500 each, which was not to become payable until each of the said infants should arrive at the age of 21 years, and then to be paid in installments of $50 per year without interest.
On the 14th of January, 1907, she brought this suit in the circuit court of Upshur county to have the conveyance set aside and declared void on the following grounds: (1) Mental incompetency in the grantor to make a conveyance; (2) inadequacy of consideration; and (3) fraud in the procurement of the deed. Pending the suit Rebecca Black died, and an amended bill was filed by Mrs. Jane Bonnell, her daughter and only heir at law, and the mother of the grandchildren provided for in the deed. The defendant answered, and denied specifically all the allegations of the bill. The case turns upon whether, or not, the depositions of witnesses taken and filed in the case are sufficient to sustain the charges in the bill. The evidence is voluminous, covering over 500 pages of the printed record. It would be a laborious and useless task to review all the testimony in this opinion; it could serve no useful purpose. The most of it has no special bearing on the case. It consists largely of the opinions of Rebecca Black's neighbors concerning her competency, or incompetency, to make a deed; many of the witnesses being of the opinion that she was not competent, and others being of the opinion that she was competent, to make the deed. One witness goes so far as to say that he did not believe she knew right from wrong, and bases his reason for this belief on the fact that Rebecca Black did not attend church; others stated that they did not regard her as competent to transact business, and based their opinion on the ground that she told them she wanted to get married; that she had said she would make a deed for half her farm to some good man if he would marry her and take care of her. The proof shows that she had been a widow for about four years; that she lived on this farm all alone; that she was not physically able to take care of the farm and feed her stock; that she could not secure the services of a reliable man to do it for her; that her manner was disagreeable; that she was odd and eccentric; and that her daughter, Jane Bonnell, seldom went to see her. Rebecca Black was at this time about 63 years of age. Under these circumstances we do not think that her expression of a desire to get married was evidence of mental weakness. True, she evinced more candor in regard to this matter than is usually disclosed by her sex; this proves that she did not possess that high degree of modesty concerning matrimonial affairs that is usual in womankind, but it does not prove mental incapacity. She may have been influenced more by motives of business than of sentiment to make known her wish to get married, and may have adopted this method of making her wish known. Men sometimes convey all their property in consideration of marriage, and display good judgment in doing so. Why, then, impeach a woman's competency to transact business who is willing to convey only half her property in consideration of marriage? Rebecca Black's failure to attend church is no evidence of want of business capacity, or of the fact that she did not know right from wrong. It might just as well be taken as evidence to prove the contrary. She may have refused to attend upon the services of the church because she did not want to be reminded of her sins. Many of the witnesses, who gave their opinions that Rebecca Black was not competent to make the deed, are shown to have had dealings with her, either in the way of leasing land from her for the purpose of raising crops, harvesting her meadows for a share of the crop, or purchasing cattle from her. It is clearly proven that, during her husband's lifetime, she looked after her own business and did her own trading. It is true she often sought the opinions of others concerning the value of certain property she desired to sell. This is nothing more than most people do. Some people get their information as to the market value of articles by reading the published reports of the market, others by inquiry of those on whose judgment they rely. Few persons depend altogether on their own judgment, and those who do so usually evince bad judgment. That Rebecca Black was eccentric and peculiar in her manner, thought, and speech there can be no doubt, but that she was competent to transact business, and had sufficient mind to make disposition of her property and to know the effect of a deed of conveyance, we think there can be as little doubt.
The presumption of law is always in favor of the competency of the grantor to execute a deed at the time it was made, and the burden of proof is on the party attacking the deed to overcome this presumption. Smith on Frauds, 187; Eakin v Hawkins, 52 W.Va. 124, 43 S.E. 211; Erwin v. Hedrick, 52 W.Va. 537, 44 S.E. 165; Delaplain v. Grubb, 44 W.Va. 612, 30 S.E. 201, 67 Am. St. Rep 788; Snodgrass v. Knight, 43 W.Va. 294, 27 S.E. 233; Buckey v. Buckey, 38 W.Va. 168, 18 S.E. 383. The judge of the circuit court, in deciding this case, rendered a carefully prepared written opinion which is made a part of appellee's brief. We conclude our observations upon the question of the grantor's sanity and mental capacity at the time of making the deed with the following quotation from that opinion, viz.: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial