Campbell v. Campbell

• Decision Date: 26 February 1913
• Citation: 85 A. 930,35 R.I. 211
• Parties: CAMPBELL v. CAMPBELL et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

85 A. 930

35 R.I. 211

CAMPBELL

v. CAMPBELL et al.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Feb. 26, 1913.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Christopher M. Lee, Judge.

Proceedings by Elisha J. Campbell against George E. Campbell and others, commissioners upon the insolvent estate of James Campbell.Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff excepts.Reversed.

See, also, 83 Atl. 325.

James A. Williams, of Providence, for appellant.

Irving Champlin, James Harris, and John S. Murdock, all of Providence, for appellees.

PARKHURST, J.For the nature and previous travel of this case, which is an appeal from an award of commissioners upon the insolvent estate of James Campbell, reference may be had to the opinion of this court in the same matter, reported in 30 R. I. 63, 73 Atl. 354.Upon the new trial had pursuant to the order therefor as set forth in that opinion, the case was again tried, and resulted in a verdict of the jury in the following terms: "The jury find that the claim of the appellant, Elisha J. Campbell, against the estate of James Campbell for $15,550, for 'note, money and service,' which said claim was allowed by the commissioners on said estate for the sum of $2,700, should be disallowed, and that there is nothing due to Elisha J. Campbell from said estate by reason of said claim, and that the sum of $2,700 should be deducted from the claim of said appellant as allowed by said commissioners."

The claim filed by the appellant in the municipal court of the city of Providence, the court of probate for said city, is as follows :

"Providence, R. I. March 4, 1905."Estate of James Campbell, to Elisha J. Campbell, Dr.

1902.April 1st.To amount of negotiable promissory note made by James Campbell April 1, 1902, for ten thousand dollars, payable on demand to Elisha J. Campbell, or order

$10,000

1904.June 28.To services two years and three months to date at $150 per month

4,050

1904.June 28.To moneys paid on your account

1,500

Total

$15,550"

It is upon this claim of the appellant that the proceedings are based.The appellees defended against said claim upon the grounds that there was no consideration for the note, and that the appellant rendered no such services as claimed under the second item, and never paid any moneys as set forth in the third item.The appellees further set up that, at the time when the $10,000 note was signed and delivered to the appellant, James Campbell was insane and incapable of transacting business, and that therefore the note was void, and no recovery could be had thereon.Thus it appears that there was a double defense set up as to the claim upon the $10,000 note: First, that the same was given without consideration; and, second that it was void by reason of the insanity of James Campbell.A vast amount of testimony appears in the transcript introduced on behalf of the appellant in the endeavor to show that said note was given to him by his father partly in consideration of work and labor in his father's service extending over a period of years, for which he was entitled to a salary which was not paid, and partly in consideration of moneys loaned and advanced by the appellant to his father, all prior to the date of the note; and the appellees introduced testimony to contradict this.Also there was a vast amount of testimony introduced in the endeavor to show, on the one hand, that said James Campbell was insane when the note was signed and delivered, and, on the other hand, to show that at that time he was of sound mind and capable of giving a valid note.

During the progress of the trial the appellant took exceptions to the number of 21, relating to exclusion and admission of testimony and to the refusal of certain requests for instructions to the jury, and duly prosecuted his bill of exceptions to this court, and the case is now before this court upon his bill of exceptions.

At the argument before this courtthe appellant waived all of his exceptions, except those which are numbered 19, 20, and 21.The nineteenth exception was to the refusal of the trial judge to charge, at appellant's request, as follows (noted on page 1764 of the transcript): "Even if the jury believe that James Campbell was insane at the time he gave the note in evidence in this case to Elisha J. Campbell, yet if the jury also believe that Elisha J. Campbell, at the time he received the note, did not know, or have sufficient reason to know, that his father was then insane, then, inasmuch as Elisha J. Campbell cannot now be tendered back such consideration as he furnished for the note, he is entitled to recover in this action at least the amount of that note, and interest thereon to the date of the death of James Campbell."

Exception 19 must be overruled.It presumes the fact that James Campbell was insane at the time he gave the note.It cannot then be said that the note, as such, became a valid obligation upon which recovery could be had, simply because the payee of the note did not know, or have sufficient reason to know, of such insanity.That would be a most dangerous rule as to recovery in such cases; it would permit the payee to show that he was ignorant, and entitled to recover in a case where every one else knew the fact of insanity, and where the proof of the fact was overwhelming.Such a ruling was refused in the trial court in the case of Seaver v. Phelps, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 304, 22 Am. Dec. 372, and the refusal was sustained by the Supreme Judicial Court, on exception; the opinion stating the principle as follows (Wilde, J.): "The general doctrine that the contracts, and other acts in pais, of idiots and insane persons are not binding in law or equity is not denied.* * * These principles are not controverted by the defendant's counsel; but they maintain that, if the plaintiff was of unsound mind and incapable of understanding at the time he pledged the note to the defendant, yet, if the defendant was not apprised of that fact, or had no reason to suspect it from the plaintiff's conduct, or from any other source, and did not overreach him, or practice any fraud or unfairness, then that the contract of bailment was valid and binding, and could not be avoided in the present action.And they requested the court of common pleas so to instruct the jury.That court, however, were of opinion that the law was otherwise, and we all concur in the same opinion.If it had been only proved that the plaintiff was a person of weak understanding, the instructions requested would have been appropriate and proper; for every man, after arriving at full age, whether wise or unwise, if he be compos mentis, has the capacity and power of contracting and disposing of his property; and his contracts and conveyances will be valid and binding, provided no undue advantage be taken of his imbecility.It is sometimes difficult to determine what constitutes insanity, and to distinguish between that and great weakness of understanding.The boundary between them may be very narrow, and, in fact, often is, although the legal consequences and provisions attached to the one and the other, respectively, are widely different.In the present case, however, this point is settled by the verdict, and no question is made respecting it.We are to consider the plaintiff as in a state of insanity at the time he pledged his note to the defendant; and, this being admitted, we think it cannot avail him as a legal defense to show that he was ignorant of the fact and practiced no imposition.The fairness of the defendant's conduct cannot supply the plaintiff's want of capacity."

Exception 20 (noted on page 1765 of transcript) was to a refusal to charge the jury, at appellant's request, as follows: "Even if the jury should find from the evidence that James Campbell was insane at the time he gave Elisha J. Campbell the note for ten thousand dollars ($10,000), which is in evidence in this case, and should find that said note is invalid, nevertheless, if the jury should also find that Elisha J. Campbell, prior to the time when he received said note, had either performed services for or had loaned money to James Campbell, or had both performed such services for and loaned...