Chambers v. Brady

• Decision Date: 22 January 1897
• Citation: 69 N.W. 1015,100 Iowa 622
• Parties: CHAMBERS v. BRADY ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

100 Iowa 622

69 N.W. 1015

CHAMBERS

v.BRADY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 22, 1897.

Appeal from district court, Johnson county; M. J. Wade, Judge.

Suit in equity to set aside and cancel a deed made by one Thomas Brady in his lifetime to the defendants. It is claimed that Brady was weak and unsound of mind at the time the conveyance was made, and that the defendants procured the execution and delivery thereof by fraud and undue influence. The court dismissed the plaintiff's petition, and she appeals. Affirmed.Joe A. Edwards and W. J. Baldwin, for appellant.

Ranck & Bradley, for appellees.

DEEMER, J.

Thomas Brady was the owner of 160 acres of land in Johnson county, valued at about the sum of $6,000. He, with his family, had resided thereon, at the time of his death, more than 40 years. His wife died in the year 1874, and his three children, who are the parties to this litigation, remained with him until the marriage of plaintiff, in the year 1881. After the plaintiff's marriage, she left the old homestead, and took up her residence with her husband. The defendants continued to live with their father upon the premises in controversy until his death, which occurred in July of the year 1894. On the 15th day of July, 1893, he executed the deed which is sought to be avoided in this case, and at his suggestion the deed was recorded on the same day. Brady was 83 years old at the time he died. He had seen service in the Mexican war, was a man of good habits, and for a man of his age was physically strong at the time he died. The appellant claims that, at the time the deed was executed, Brady was suffering from senile dementia, and that, while he may not have been a fit subject for the insane commissioners to take in charge, yet he was so weak of intellect that the conveyance made by him should be avoided. Appellant also claims that the deed was procured through fraud and undue influence practiced by the appellees upon their father. These claims are denied by the appellees.

The first question to which we will give attention is that relating to the alleged unsoundness of mind of the grantor. It is practically undisputed that the deceased was a well-preserved man physically for one of his age, and it is conclusively shown that he was a man of strong convictions and of great firmness of character. He lived, it is true, beyond the period usually allotted to man, and was somewhat childish during the latter years of his life, and, it may be, was suffering from senile dementia at the time he died. But a careful examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that at the time he made the deed in question he had sufficient mental capacity to comprehend the nature and quality of his act, and to proceed with judgment and discretion in disposing of his property. It would be a useless task to set forth all, or even a considerable part, of the evidence from which we reach our conclusions. It is sufficient to say that we think the plaintiff has failed on this issue, and that the great preponderance of the evidence is in appellees' favor. Appellant relies quite largely upon the opinions of experts, based upon hypothetical questions propounded to them. These questions embodied all the peculiarities and idiosyncrasies of the man, covering a long period of time, and when so propounded as to indicate that these characteristics and singularities were related in point of time, and were connected, they were misleading, and not a true test of mental strength. It is questionable whether any one could meet the requirements of such a test. But, however this may be, the testimony, from those who knew him best, who watched his daily life and marked his conduct, is almost wholly to the effect that he was sound of mind up to the...