Fitch v. Reiser

• Decision Date: 22 January 1890
• Citation: 44 N.W. 214,79 Iowa 34
• Parties: FITCH ET AL. v. REISER.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

79 Iowa 34

44 N.W. 214

FITCH ET AL.

v.REISER.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 22, 1890.

Appeal from district court, Chickasaw county; L. O. HATCH, Judge.

This is an action in equity by which the plaintiffs seek to set aside and annul a deed of certain real estate which was executed by James D. Fitch to the defendant, Martha M. Reiser. The plaintiffs and the defendant are the children of said Fitch. Upon a final hearing upon the merits the district court granted the prayer of the petition, and annulled the deed. Defendant appeals.J. H. Powers, for appellant.

J. W. Sandusky, for appellees.

ROTHROCK, C. J.

James D. Fitch owned and resided for many years upon a farm of about 100 acres in Chickasaw county. He was the father of the parties to this action. His wife died on the 13th day of September, 1886. On the 21st day of the same month he made the deed in question, by which he conveyed his farm to his daughter, the defendant in this action. He died on the 26th day of September, 1887, at the advanced age of nearly 83 years. He was a man of no education, as the term is commonly used. He was several years older than his wife, and the evidence shows that for many years prior to her death he consulted and advised with her about all of his business transactions, even to matters of the most trifling character. The loss of his wife was a great calamity to him. His children were all married, and at the time of his wife's death the daughter of the defendant, aged about 13, was the only member of the family. He and his wife had taken this child when she was quite young, and she remained with them as long as they lived. The defendant and her husband resided on one corner of the farm at the time of the death of the father and mother. It is claimed by the plaintiffs that the deed should be canceled upon two grounds: (1) Because of the mental incapacity of James D. Fitch to make a valid conveyance; (2) because of undue influence exercised by the defendant over her father, which, in his weakened mental condition, induced him to make the deed.

The cause is to be determined upon the preponderance of the evidence upon these questions, and there is a marked conflict in the testimony of the witnesses upon the issue as to the mental capacity of the deceased at the time he executed the deed. One thing, however, is abundantly established, and that is that, by reason of the dependence of the deceased upon the advice and direction of his wife, her death was a greater bereavement to him than it otherwise would have been. The story of his lamentations over her death, as detailed by the witnesses, is a most pathetic delineation of the crushing and overwhelming sorrow of an aged man at the loss of the partner of his joys and sorrows through a long and happy married life. It was perfectly natural that he should seek counsel and advice of others, and the evidence conclusively establishes the fact that, after the death of his wife, he put himself under the care and control of his daughter, the defendant. Her power over him appears to have been as absolute as that of the mother during her life; and this dependence upon the defendant and her control over him were manifest at once upon the death of the mother.

To show the extent of this influence, we will here quote quite extensively from the testimony of Samuel D. Kenyon, cashier of the First National Bank of New Hampton, as to a business transaction he had with the deceased on the 26th day of November, 1886. The testimony of the witness is as follows: “Mr. Fitch held two interest-bearing certificates of deposit. One of them was for $170; the other, for $180. Both were due. He presented them for payment, but finally took payment in a new certificate of deposit, ($300,) running to Emma Reiser, and the balance of $50 and interest, he took in cash. Mrs. Reiser took a very important part in the transaction. She did nearly all of the talking for Mr. Fitch, and directed the manner in which the transaction should be closed. When the parties came into the bank Mr. Fitch did not have personal possession of the certificates of deposit, but Miss Emma Reiser, who was one of the parties, had them in a little hand-bag. Mr Fitch stepped to the counter, and said he came after his money. Mrs. Reiser then said: ‘No, pa; you do not want the money; you want it just as we talked.’ She then turned to her daughter Emma Reiser, and received from her the two certificates of deposit, and told me that her father desired to put $300 of that money in the name of Emma Reiser, his granddaughter. The balance they wanted in cash. After some talk between Mrs. Reiser and Mr. Fitch, he said that was right. The certificate and nearly all the money she gave to her daughter, who put it in her hand-bag. She gave Mr. Fitch only a small portion of the money. The money was laid on the counter in front of Mr. Fitch, and Mrs. Reiser took possession of it. Mr. Fitch had no opportunity to count over the money, as Mrs. Reiser at once took possession of it. I think I can describe Mrs. Reiser's conduct....