Casey v. Krump, 1 Div. 576

• Decision Date: 21 January 1954
• Docket Number: 1 Div. 576
• Citation: 260 Ala. 280,69 So.2d 864
• Parties: CASEY v. KRUMP et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 864

69 So.2d 864

260 Ala. 280

CASEY v. KRUMP et al.

1 Div. 576.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 21, 1954.

D. R. Coley, Jr., and Chris C. DeLaney, Mobile, for appellant.

John Chason, Bay Minette, and Johnston, McCall & Johnston, Mobile, for appellees.

MERRILL, Justice.

Nic Krump owned considerable land in Baldwin County during his lifetime and at his death left an estate appraised at $23,750. His wife contracted pneumonia in 1934 and the appellant and respondent Mildred Casey, then 18 years of age, came into the Krump home to nurse Mrs. Krump. Mrs. Krump recovered from pneumonia but she became mentally ill and was sent to a hospital in 1936, where she remained until her death in 1940. Mrs. Casey continued to live in the Krump household and she testified that she 'drove the car, cooked and did anything that was needed to be done.'

In 1938 she left the Krump home and lived in Florida and California, and while in California married one Robert Casey, was divorced by him and she returned to Baldwin County in 1945. She resumed her friendship with Mr. Krump and in 1946 he gave her a deed to some property and gave her $1,000 to pay on an automobile. He deeded another tract to her in 1947 and bought a home for her for which he paid $4,100, and they saw each other regularly, both prior and subsequent to the execution of the two deeds involved in this action, that date being the 18th day of January, 1950. On the morning of that day, Mr. Krump, 75 years of age, was examined by Dr. W. C. Holmes, who found him to be suffering from acute hematuria hypertension chronic blood pressure, prostatitis, chronic and senile dementia. After the doctor had left, Mrs. Casey took Mr. Krump in the Packard automobile which he had given her on Christmas day of 1949 and they drove to a real estate agent's office in Foley, who was furnishing a desk in his office for the use of Mrs. Casey, and Mr. Krump executed one of the deeds here involved and left instructions for the other deed to be prepared conveying more of his lands to Mrs. Casey. He and Mrs. Casey returned in about two hours and he signed the second deed.

Dr. Holmes continued to see Mr. Krump every day and on January 22, 1950, he put him in Holmes' Hospital at Foley. He stayed in this hospital until January 29th, when Mrs. Casey and Mr. R. M. Smith of Mobile carried him to the Mobile Infirmary. Mrs. Casey had a cot placed in his room and stayed at the hospital with him until February 28th when Mr. Matt Krump and Mr. Herbert Krump, brothers of Nic Krump, requested that she leave.

The bill was originally filed under the style of 'Nic Krump, a non compos mentis, by Matt Krump as next friend, complainant, v. Mildred Casey, respondent,' to set aside the two deeds which were executed on January 18, 1950. Mr. Nic Krump died on February 14, 1951, and by his last will and testament, left all of his property to his two brothers, Matt Krump and Herbert Krump, and the suit was revived in their names. The demurrer to the bill was overruled, the answer filed denying the incapacity of Nic Krump to execute the deeds and the testimony taken ore tenus before the court. The decree granted the complainants the relief prayed for and Mrs. Casey has appealed.

Appellant argues two assignments of error. The first is that the allegation as to Nic Krump's insanity was insufficient and the demurrer should have been sustained. The allegation in the bill as amended is:

'6. At the time of the signing and delivery of said documents mentioned in Paragraph 5 of this bill, on the 18th day of January, 1950, Nic Krump was of unsound mind and incapable of executing said documents as valid deeds of conveyance to said lands, all of which was well known to the respondent at the time. * * *.'

In Cox v. Parker, 212 Ala. 35, 101 So. 657, 659, a bill to cancel a deed of gift, the allegation 'that at the time of the signature by her, she had become greatly weakened mentally and physically, and did not know or understand the nature or the consequences of the act she was about to perform', was held 'sufficient to raise the issue of the soundness of mind of the donor;' and in Holden v. Holden, 235 Ala. 436, 179 So. 523, where the allegation was 'and complainants say that the...