Gilbert v. Ruggles

• Decision Date: 06 July 1920
• Docket Number: No. 33327.,33327.
• Citation: 178 N.W. 340,189 Iowa 206
• Parties: GILBERT ET AL. v. RUGGLES ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

189 Iowa 206

178 N.W. 340

GILBERT ET AL.

v.RUGGLES ET AL.

No. 33327.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

July 6, 1920.

Appeal from District Court, Jasper County; Henry F. Wagner, Judge.

Suit in equity to set aside certain deeds of real estate. The plaintiffs are the heirs at law of the grantor of such deeds. The grounds of attack were: (1) That the grantor lacked mental capacity to make the same; (2) that the execution of the same by the grantor was procured by fraud and undue influence. After a trial upon the merits, there was a decree dismissing the petition. The plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.E. M. S. McLaughlin, of Newton, and Mulvaney & Mulvaney, of Des Moines, for appellants.

E. J. Salmon, of Long Beach, Cal., and McCoy & McCoy, of Oskaloosa, for appellees.

EVANS, J.

The plaintiffs are heirs at law of George W. Gilbert, late of Jasper county. Some of their coheirs are named as defendants. The defendants Jacob and Amanda Ruggles are grantees in one of the deeds under attack. The other Ruggles defendants are the four minor children of Jacob and Amanda and are the grantees in the other deed under attack.

George W. Gilbert was a long time resident of Jasper county. In his more than 50 years of residence he had acquired considerable property comprising several hundred acres of land and city property. His family consisted of his wife and seven children. His wife obtained a divorce from him in December, 1904, on the ground of desertion alleged to have occurred in 1902. Jacob and Amanda Ruggles are husband and wife. Jacob first became a hired man to Gilbert in 1891 for a period of about one year. Some time later, and about the year 1896, he again entered the employ of Gilbert, and, except for a break of one year, continued in such employment until after the events herein involved. During such employment he occupied the house on one of Gilbert's farms. After the divorce, Gilbert boarded and lodged at the Ruggles home, and so continued until shortly before his death. Gilbert's occupation consisted in the operation of his farms and in the management of a certain mill property in which he was a part owner. The record shows without dispute that at all times prior to 1910 he had been prudent and successful in all of his business affairs.

The complaint of plaintiffs is that on April 8, 1910, he conveyed to Jacob and Amanda Ruggles without consideration 100 acres of land, and that afterwards, on April 11, 1914, he conveyed to the four youngest children of Jacob and Amanda Ruggles 100 acres of land without consideration. It is contended that the property thus conveyed was of the value of $70,000, and that the conveyance thereof was improvident on Gilbert's part and the result of mental incapacity and undue influence.

At the time of the divorce Gilbert conveyed to his wife $50,000 worth of property, including the home farm of 240 acres. The divorced wife died in 1906 intestate, and her children took her estate. Upon their application the father was appointed administrator, and as such administered on and distributed the estate among the children. He died April 6, 1918, leaving an estate of about $150,000. No other improvident act is charged against him either in pleading or evidence than the two conveyances already referred to.

The two conveyances complained of were not contemporaneous. It is necessary, therefore, to consider them separately.

I. We turn first to a consideration of the conveyance to Jacob and Amanda Ruggles of April 8, 1910. The question of Gilbert's mental condition will be considered in the next paragraph in connection with the conveyance of 1914. We shall not dwell upon it at this point further than to say that our finding on this question, as of this date, is adverse to the plaintiffs.

The immediate facts attending the making of the conveyance of 1910 are of such a nature as to fully refute the complaint of plaintiffs in relation thereto.

[1] It is made to appear that in May, 1914, Mrs. Anderson, one of the daughters of Gilbert

and now one of the plaintiffs, began a proceeding in the district court of Jasper county for the appointment of a guardian for her father on the ground of mental incapacity and that he was squandering his property. These grounds were predicated upon the two conveyances now under attack. A temporary guardian was appointed ex parte, which appointment was afterwards set aside upon motion. While this proceeding was pending, and in February and March, 1915, the deposition of Gilbert was taken. He was at that time suffering from an affection of his throat, and testified under some physical disability on account thereof. But an exhaustive examination was had consisting of more than 300 interrogatories. The facts pertaining to this conveyance and the reasons therefor were fully gone into and stated by the witness. Such deposition was introduced in evidence herein by the defendants. From such deposition it appeared that 100 acres conveyed to Jacob and Amanda Ruggles constituted one-half of a 200-acre farm purchased jointly by Gilbert and Jacob Ruggles in October, 1909, from W. E. Kingdom. The farm was purchased for $124 an acre, and settlement therefor was to be made on March 1st. The settlement was made on March 1st by Gilbert, and a deed taken from Kingdom to him. Shortly thereafter Ruggles settled with him for his share of the purchase, and Gilbert made the conveyance pursuant to the original purchase. That the original purchase was a joint one is undisputed in the evidence. The statement of Gilbert to that effect is also corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses who had to do with the transaction and by newspaper publication of the fact at the time. Indeed, this fact does not appear to be controverted in the argument of appellants in this court. But it is contended that no consideration was, in fact, ever paid by Jacob or Amanda Ruggles for the one-half thus conveyed to them. This contention is qualified with the further contention that not more than $2,000 of the consideration was paid. The deed recited a consideration paid of $12,400. This was exactly one-half of the purchase price of the whole farm. If the amount thus stated was not actually paid, Gilbert had nevertheless a good cause of action therefor. The agreement to pay was itself sufficient consideration to support the deed as such. The remedy in such case was to enforce the payment. In an equitable sense, the title of Ruggles had its origin, not...