Gray v. Turley

• Decision Date: 31 March 1887
• Parties: Gray, Guardian, v. Turley and others.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

110 Ind. 254

11 N.E. 40

Gray, Guardian,

v.Turley and others.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

March 31, 1887.

Appeal from circuit court, Howard county.

Vail & Cooper and Hendry & Woods, for appellant. Bell & Purdum, for appellees.

MITCHELL, J.

This suit was brought by the guardian of Catherine Baker, a person of unsound mind, to set aside a deed of conveyance for a certain 80-acre tract of land in Howard county, by which deed it is alleged the insane ward became dispossessed of lands to which she had the equitable title. The special findings of the court exhibit the following facts: Catherine Baker was and still is the wife of Levi Baker. In 1865, Levi Baker came into possession of $1,200, which belonged to his wife. In November of that year he purchased the tract of land in controversy for the consideration of $1,450, paying thereon the $1,200 belonging to his wife. Baker took the title to the land in his own name. This fact was made known to his wife, but she was insane at the time, and neither gave nor refused consent. The deed to Baker was duly recorded. In 1870, Baker and wife conveyed the land to Nathan Patty, the purchase price being $1,200. Patty assumed a $400 mortgage given by Baker and wife, part of which was for the unpaid purchase price. For the balance he gave his notes, which were, as part of the same transaction, traded by Baker for 30 acres of land, the title to which he took in his own name. Patty knew at the time the deed was made to him by Baker and wife that Mrs. Baker was insane, and that her money was used in purchasing the land in dispute. In September, 1874, Patty sold the land to John Turley for $2,600, and conveyed it to him by warranty deed. At the time Turley took the conveyance from Patty he had notice that Mrs. Baker's money was invested in the land, and that she was of unsound mind when she joined her husband in the conveyance to Patty. In October, 1880, John Turley and wife conveyed by warranty deed, for a valuable consideration, to Benjamin P. Turley, who in a few days thereafter conveyed the land in like manner to the wife of John Turley. She held the legal title at the time suit was commenced. The finding is silent upon the subject of notice to Benjamin P. Turley, concerning the mental condition or equitable rights of Mrs. Baker. The court found that Mrs. Turley paid a valuable consideration for the land without any knowledge of the mental infirmity of Mrs. Baker, and without notice of her equitable rights growing out of the fact that her money was invested in the land. In June, 1880, prior to the conveyance to Turley's wife, Mrs. Baker was judicially declared to be a person of unsound mind, and Mr. Gray was appointed her guardian. He afterwards notified all the parties of his disaffirmance of the several conveyances, and demanded a reconveyance of the land to his ward.

Upon the foregoing facts the court stated conclusions of law to the effect that Benjamin P. Turley and Mrs. John Turley were innocent purchasers of the land in controversy for value, and that the plaintiff, as the guardian of Mrs. Baker, was not entitled to the relief prayed. The only question here relates to the propriety of the conclusions of law upon the facts stated. It may be remarked that, while the special finding of facts makes it clear that $1,200 of Mrs. Baker's money was invested in the land, it does not clearly appear who paid the other $250 of the purchase price, which was $1,450. It is found that Patty assumed the payment of a mortgage for $400, given by Baker and wife to one Gibbs, on the day of the sale to Patty, and that this sum was a debt due from Baker to one Fiske, and that it was part of the purchase price due on the land. Baker purchased the land for $1,450, and paid $1,200 belonging to his wife. It may be assumed that the $400 mortgage to Gibbs was for the difference between the purchase price and the amount paid, with the interest accumulated at the time Baker sold to Patty.

So far as Patty and John Turley are concerned, both are found to have had such notice of the unsoundness of mind of Mrs. Baker, and of her equitable title to the land at the time it was conveyed to them respectively, as to have effectually precluded either from asserting any rights, in a court of equity, as innocent purchasers. Having knowledge that the money of Mrs. Baker was invested in the land, and that she was a person of unsound mind, and incapable of consenting to such investment, or of joining in a conveyance, they perpetrated a fraud upon her, when they accepted a conveyance from her husband, in which she had no capacity to join. As to them the conveyances did not affect her rights in any respect. They simply became trustees for the unfortunate woman, to the same extent and with the same rights as her husband had before he made the conveyance. The special...