Crawford v. Christian

• Decision Date: 03 January 1899
• Citation: 102 Wis. 51,78 N.W. 406
• Parties: CRAWFORD v. CHRISTIAN ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

102 Wis. 51

78 N.W. 406

CRAWFORD

v.CHRISTIAN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Jan. 3, 1899.

Appeal from circuit court, Dodge county; James J. Dick, Judge.

Action by David Crawford against Carl Christian and others to set aside a conveyance of real estate on the ground of fraud and undue influence. The answer put the material allegations of the complaint in issue. The court found the facts as follows: April 17, 1895, plaintiff was the owner of the property described in the complaint. On that day he conveyed the same to Carl Christian for the sum of $4,101. He had sufficient mental caoacity to conduct the necessary business transactions to sell and convey his property as he did. Neither Carl Christian, nor any agent for or other person acting in his behalf, was guilty of fraud or undue influence in securing a conveyance of the property, but it was conveyed by plaintiff freely and voluntarily, according to his own wish in the matter. The consideration for the conveyance was a fair measure of the value of the property. As conclusions of law the court found, in substance, that plaintiff failed totally to establish his cause of action, and that defendants were entitled to a judgment against the plaintiff for their costs and disbursements in the action. Judgment was entered accordingly and plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.Malone & Bachhuber, for appellant.

George W. Sloan, for respondents.

MARSHALL, J. (after stating the facts as above).

It is not considered necessary or advisable to discuss at any considerable length the assignments of error urged on this appeal. The cause appears to have been fairly tried and the record free from any prejudicial error.

The evidence of a nonexpert witness as to the mental condition of plaintiff was properly rejected, there being no foundation for a nonexpert opinion from the witness. Such an opinion may properly be given as evidence on the subject of mental unsoundness, but only upon the witness first qualifying himself by stating facts within his personal knowledge and means of personal observation, such as to satisfy the court of his ability to give an intelligent opinion liable to be of some assistance to the jury in coming to a correct conclusion. Such evidence is an exception to the general rule which confines a nonexpert witness to a statement of facts only. The exception applies solely when the qualification of the witness is first satisfactorily shown in the manner indicated. Burnham v. Mitchell, 34...