Grissom v. Grissom.

• Decision Date: 25 October 1919
• Docket Number: No. 2332.,2332.
• Citation: 185 P. 64,25 N.M. 518
• Parties: GRISSOMv.GRISSOM.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

25 N.M. 518

185 P. 64

GRISSOM

v.GRISSOM.

No. 2332.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Oct. 25, 1919.

Syllabus by the Court.

In a suit brought to cancel a deed obtained by fraud, where there is substantial evidence to support the general finding of the court and there are no special findings made by the judge who tried the case, the fact that erroneous evidence was admitted is no ground for reversal, unless it appears that the court considered this evidence in deciding the case.

Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Where the decree of the trial court in a suit to cancel a deed obtained by fraud is sustained by evidence, although conflicting, it will not be disturbed on appeal.

In a suit to cancel a deed by a husband to his wife on the ground of fraud, a copy of the husband's will, introduced to show his mental weakness, was inadmissible, where the loss of the original was not accounted for.

Error to District Court, Curry County; Richardson, Judge.

Suit by Elijah F. Grissom against Lillian Grissom, to cancel and set aside a deed. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

In a suit to cancel a deed by a husband to his wife on the ground of fraud, a copy of the husband's will, introduced to show his mental weakness, was inadmissible, where the loss of the original was not accounted for.

Rowells & Reese, of Portales, for plaintiff in error.

Patton & Hatch, of Clovis, for defendant in error.

RAYNOLDS, J.

This is an appeal from a decree in the district court of Curry county, canceling and setting aside a deed made by the appellee, Elijah Grissom, to the appellant, Lillian Grissom.

On the 7th day of September, 1917, defendant in error filed his first amended complaint in said court, alleging, among other things, in substance, the following: That on or about the 1st day of May, 1917, he was a widower, the father of two sons by a former marriage, and that the plaintiff in error was a widow, and the mother of one son by a former marriage; that at said time he was the owner of the land described in the complaint, consisting of 680 acres, located in Curry county, N. M.; that the plaintiff in error sought an introduction to him, and by false pretenses induced him to accompany her to California, where she married herself to him on the 9th day of May, 1917, as a part of the scheme to defraud him out of his property; and further charging that the defendant in error was unsophisticated, credulous, with small resisting powers, and to a certain extent mentally weak; that the plaintiff in error was in the prime of life, crafty, cunning, and of a strong mind and willful disposition; that she represented to him that she loved him, and further represented to him that she had notes amounting to $8,000, all matured and due to her from parties who lived in El Paso, Tex.; that all of said notes would be paid on presentation; and that she had sent said notes to El Paso for collection, and that the proceeds thereof, aggregating $8,000, she would deposit to the joint account of herself and him in said bank; and that in consideration of the expressed love and affection for him, and the deposit of said sum of money, $8,000, to their joint account, he agreed to deed to her the lands described in the complaint and set out in Exhibit A, attached thereto, and to place the same in escrow in the bank to be delivered when said sum of $8,000, should be deposited in the bank; that she stated to him that if he should die his children would take from her all property then owned by him, and deprive her of support during the remainder of her life; and that unless such arrangements were made that her son, in event of her death, would take and withhold from him all of said sum of $8,000 which she owned; and that, believing and relying upon such representations, he made and acknowledged the deed in question to her; and that upon the making of said deed she took physical possession of it, and refused to deliver it to him to be held by him until she should deposit the sum of $8,000 in said bank; that she, without his consent, forwarded said deed to the county clerk of Curry county, N. M., and had same placed of record; that said deed was procured through fraud, without consideration, and without his consent; that she had no love and affection for him; that she was not the owner of any such notes, and she failed and refused to make the joint deposit as she had promised; that all of her representations were false, and knowingly made by her to deceive him; that he believed and relied upon such representations, and thereby executed the deed in question.

He prayed for the cancellation of the deed, that his title to said land be quieted, and for general relief.

The plaintiff in error filed her answer to the first amended complaint, denying generally each and every material allegation of the complaint, except such as are specifically admitted in the answer.

She admitted that the defendant in error owned the lands described in the complaint at the time alleged in the third paragraph of the first amended complaint, but denies the value to be as great as alleged in the complaint; she admits that at said time she was a widow, Mrs. Welch; but she specifically denies that she in any way connived or intended to cheat or swindle defendant in error out of his property or lands; denies that she persuaded him to accompany her to California, or that she exercised any undue influence over him; she admits that she married him on the 7th day of May, 1917, but alleges that such marriage was brought about by the urgent and repeated requests of the defendant in error, and not at her...