Campbell v. Freeman

• Decision Date: 06 April 1921
• Docket Number: No. 13397.,13397.
• Citation: 130 N.E. 319,296 Ill. 536
• Parties: CAMPBELL et al. v. FREEMAN et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

296 Ill. 536

130 N.E. 319

CAMPBELL et al.

v.FREEMAN et al.

No. 13397.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 15, 1921.

Rehearing Denied April 6, 1921.

Error to Circuit Court, Macon County; William K. Whitfield, Judge.

Suit by Mary J. Campbell and others against Laura B. Freeman and others. To review decree dismissing the bill, plaintiffs bring error.

Decree affirmed.

Whitley & Fitzgerald and Le Forgee, Black & Samuels, all of Decatur, for plaintiffs in error.

Redmon, Hogan & Redmon, of Decatur, for defendants in error.

STONE, J.

Mary J. Campbell and Malinda E. Hunsley, sisters of Francis M. Hostetler, deceased, filed their bill in the circuit court of Macon county against Laura B. Freeman and others, praying that certain deeds of Hostetler to Mrs. Freeman be set aside. The cause came on for hearing before the chancellor and a jury. Issues of fact were submitted concerning the soundness of mind of the grantor and undue influence on the part of Mrs. Freeman at the time of the making of the deeds in question. The bill also charged the existence of a fiduciary relation between the grantor and Mrs. Freeman. The jury returned a verdict on the issues of fact, finding that the grantor was of sound mind at the time of the making of the deeds in question, and that the deeds were not obtained by undue influence on the part of Mrs. Freeman. The chancellor entered a decree sustaining the deeds and dismissing the bill for want of equity, and the plaintiffs in error bring the cause here for review.

Francis M. Hostetler died in St. Petersburg, Fla., on the 29th day of September, 1918, at the age of 85 years. The defendant Laura B. Freeman, who is a niece of his first wife, kept house for him and took care of him during his last illness, which covered a number of months. It appears from the evidence that the grantor had frequently spent his winters in Florida; that he had no children of his own; that his only relatives were two sisters, the plaintiffs in error here, and certain nieces and nephews of his first wife. His first wife died in 1907, and about 2 years thereafter he remarried, but was later divorced from his second wife. In August, 1917, he received an injury from a fall, which confined him to his bed for several weeks. A short time after receiving this fall Mrs. Freeman came to visit him, and from that time until his decease remained as his nurse and housekeeper. The deeds in question were made in St. Petersburg on the 29th day of January, 1918, and on the 12th day of February of that year. The former conveyed certain farm lands, consisting of about 400 acres, in Macon county. The latter deed conveyed certain town lots located in the village of Harristown, in said county.

While numerous assignments of error were made, the only ones argued here are the questions of mental capacity of the grantor in making the deeds in question, undue influence, and whether or not there was a fiduciary relationship existing between the grantor and Laura B. Freeman, and it is urged that the verdict of the jury and the finding of the chancellor on these issues were contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.

Plaintiffs in error offered the testimony of five witnesses residing n or near Harristown, Ill., who had been acquainted with the grantor for a number of years, and the depositions or testimony of eight witnesses residing in St. Petersburg. The testimony of most of these witnesses is to the effect that they considered Hostetler incapable of making a deed. Defendants in error introduced the testimony of 16 witnesses residing in or near Harristown for the purpose of showing the mental capacity of the grantor. Nearly all of these witnesses had known the grantor for a number of years, and all testified that in their opinion he was a man of sound mind and capable of making these deeds.

It is well settled that in a case of this character the burden rests upon the complainant to show that the grantor was not mentally capable of making the deeds sought to be set aside. It is also the law that old age, eccentricity, or even partial impairment of mental faculties is not necessarily sufficient to set aside a deed. The rule is, that if a grantor has sufficient mental capacity to comprehend the nature of the transaction in making the deed and its meaning and effect, and is able to protect his own interests, the deed will not be set aside. Bordner v. Kelso, 293 Ill. 175, 127 N. E. 337;Crosby v. Dorward, 248 Ill. 471, 94 N. E. 78,140 Am. St. Rep. 230;McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 241 Ill. 366, 89 N. E. 645;Baker v. Baker, 239 Ill. 82, 87 N. E. 868;Sears v. Vaughan, 230 Ill. 572, 82 N. E. 881. The jury and the chancellor have found that the grantor in this case was mentally capable of making these deeds. Upon reading the evidence in the record we are of the opinion that they were justified in this finding. Hostetler was a man who had accumulated considerable property. The testimony of all the witnesses shows that he transacted...