Chickering v. Brooks

• Citation: 61 Vt. 554, 18 A. 144
• Case Date: July 22, 1889
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Vermont

18 A. 144
61 Vt. 554

CHICKERING
v.
BROOKS et ux.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Caledonia.

July 22, 1889.

Exceptions from Caledonia county court.

This was a petition in chancery, and was heard before ROWELL, Chancellor, at the June term, 1888, on bill, answer, master's report, and exceptions of the defendants thereto. From the master's report it appears that in February, 1887, the oratrix was adjudged insane, and B. D. Hartshorn appointed her guardian. The subsequent November she died, leaving a will, which was admitted to probate. One Ora Drew was appointed her administrator with the will annexed, and as such was at the December term, 1887, admitted to prosecute this suit. When the oratrix died she was 85 years old. The defendant Roxana Brooks was her niece, and in 1883 she and her husband, the defendant William, lived on a farm in Concord, of which the legal title was in one Hill. William obtained a decree allowing him to redeem this farm on payment of $448.66. This sum he borrowed of the oratrix, giving her his note for the amount, and he and his wife quitclaimed the farm to the oratrix, upon condition that, when this note was paid, it should be redeeded to them. Defendants claim that the July following the oratrix gave this note to the defendant Roxana, but the master found that this claim was not substantiated. In November, 1883, the defendant William sold this Concord farm to one Morency. The oratrix deeded the farm

18 A. 145

to Morency, and took back a mortgage to secure the payment of six notes, one for $50, and five for $100 each, payable to her order. These notes were held by the oratrix as security for the note for $448.66. In December, 1883, defendants went to live with the oratrix upon her farm in Danville, and continued to reside with her until the spring of 1885. In February, 1885, the defendant William bargained for the farm in Danville known as the "Harris Farm." February 4th the farm was conveyed by Harris to defendant, in consideration of $600, $200 of which was paid in cash, and $400 in the notes of the defendant secured by mortgage on the premises. As further security, defendant turned out four of the Morency notes. These notes have been paid to Harris, and the mortgage indebtedness from Brooks to him fully extinguished. The $200 was furnished by the oratrix. The defendants claimed that both the $200 and the Morency notes were given to them by the oratrix. The oratrix claimed that they were both a loan and that the defendants agreed to execute a mortgage on the Harris farm to secure her therefor. On this branch of the case the report of the master was as follows: "I find that the oratrix let the defendants have the notes and the money upon an agreement that they would give her a mortgage or a deed of the Harris farm as security therefor. I find this fact entirely from parol evidence, which was seasonably objected to by defendants."

Some time previous to the June term, 1885, of the Caledonia county court, a suit was begun by the oratrix against the defendant William, and the Harris place attached. Previously to the December term, 1886, the oratrix signed a written agreement that this suit might be discontinued, without costs, and it was so entered at such December term. On the 6th of December, 1886, the oratrix executed another release, discharging the said William from all claims of all kinds whatever. This last release was under seal. It was claimed on behalf of the oratrix that this last instrument was procured by fraud, and that when she executed the same she was incompetent. The master found: "At the time of the execution of said instrument she had been confined to her bed for most of the time for two years; she had become too feeble to write; was almost blind; had not physical power sufficient to make her mark upon the paper without assistance. I am satisfied that her mind had become weakened and impaired by age and physical infirmities; that at times she would seem bright and capable of understanding business to some extent, and at other times she would become confused in mind, and of but little understanding. From all the circumstances and evidence in the case I am more inclined to the opinion that she did not understand the effect of the instrument which she signed; that she only intended to have the costs and the suit stopped; that the representations of the defendant that he wanted her to sign a paper to stop suit and costs, and the paper itself,' when read to her, produced one general impression on her mind, and that her understanding of the transaction was that she was only stopping the suit and costs, and not discharging her claim; and I so find." In a supplemental report the master further found: "In answer to request No. 6, I will say I think she did have sufficient mental capacity to understand her real relations to the defendants, and whether they owed her or not, and as to amount of property, and whether she wanted suit prosecuted or not, and whether she wanted to assist defendants. I do not think she had mental capacity sufficient to understand the effect of the written instrument alone or by any assistance that it appears she had from Arad Wells. I do think if the paper had been plainly explained to her, and she had been told fully what its effect would be upon her rights, that she would have understood the instrument and explanation together, and comprehended what she was doing."

On the question of mental capacity the master received, against the objection of the defendants, the testimony of certain witnesses, not experts, but who were acquainted with the oratrix, and had associated with her more or less, who were allowed to state their opinion as to her...