Chidester v. Turnbull
| Decision Date | 21 May 1902 |
| Parties | WILLIAM N. CHIDESTER, Administrator of the Estate of William Turnbull, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v. THOMAS TURNBULL, et al |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jefferson District Court.--HON. FRANK W. EICHELBERGER Judge.
PLAINTIFF brought this action, as guardian of one William Turnbull, to set aside a conveyance to his son Thomas Turnbull, on the ground that at the time of the execution of the conveyance said William Turnbull was of unsound mind. Before the trial of the case in the lower court, William Turnbull died, and plaintiff was appointed administrator of his estate, and as such prosecuted the action to judgment. The decree being for defendant Thomas Turnbull, the administrator appeals.
Affirmed.
Leggett & McKemey for appellant.
Jones & Fullen and I. D. Jones for appellees.
It appears that in 1887 William Turnbull executed a warranty deed for a farm of 160 acres to his youngest son, Thomas Turnbull, reciting a consideration of $ 2,500 in hand paid that no money consideration for the conveyance was paid at the time of the execution of the conveyance, but defendant undertook, in an instrument which has since been lost, to support William Turnbull and his wife, the stepmother of defendant, during their lives, and that this obligation was fully performed; that subsequently a further obligation to this effect was entered into by defendant, which was duly recorded; that about five years after the execution of this deed, on the application of the children of said William Turnbull, he was found to be of unsound mind, and plaintiff was appointed his guardian, and as such guardian instituted this action to have the conveyance in question set aside on the ground that it had been executed without mental capacity and as the result of undue influence. This action was still pending in 1899, when William Turnbull died, and plaintiff being appointed administrator of his estate, was substituted in the action, and the other heirs were made parties plaintiff or defendant. As the result of a trial upon testimony taken wholly by depositions, a decree was rendered dismissing plaintiff's action.
While this court has in several cases set aside conveyances from a parent to a child where the consideration was an agreement to support, and the agreement appeared to have been improvidently entered into, and not carried out in good faith by the grantee, it is well to notice at the outset that this is not a case of that character. There is no reasonable contention on the part of plaintiffs that there was any failure of the grantee to perform the obligation assumed by him, nor is there any evidence that deceased was imposed upon or subjected to undue influence for the purpose of procuring the conveyance. The real contention on the part of plaintiffs is that at the of the conveyance deceased had not sufficient mental capacity to make such conveyance, and that it should be set aside on that ground. The administrator, as plaintiff, has no real interest in the controversy, which is one between Thomas Turnbull, on the one hand, claiming to own the farm under this conveyance, and the other children of deceased, claiming a right to inherit their respective shares of the property conveyed. It is proper to notice, also, that, at the time this conveyance was made William Turnbull and his wife were residing on the premises, and that the defendant, Thomas Turnbull, his youngest son, was also residing on the same premises, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial