Halley ex rel. Polson v. Troester

• Decision Date: 31 October 1880
• Citation: 72 Mo. 73
• Parties: HALLEY, by his Guardian, POLSON, v. TROESTER, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

72 Mo. 73

HALLEY, by his Guardian, POLSON,

v.TROESTER, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1880.

Appeal from Macon Circuit Court.--HON. ANDREW ELLISON, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

J. L. Berry and C. P. Hess for appellant, argued that an insane person's contracts prior to office found are, like those of an infant, not void but voidable, and before he can recover, he must place the other party in statu quo, citing 2 Kent Com., (10 Ed.) pp. 606, 607; Jackson v. Gumaer, 2 Cow. 568; 28 Am. Rep. 610; Loomis v. Spencer, 2 Paige 153; Canfield v. Fairbanks, 63 Barb. 461; Lancaster Co. Bank v. Moore, 78 Pa. St. 407; Wilder v. Weakley, 34 Ind. 181; Matthiessen v. McMahon, 38 N. J. L. 536; Behrens v. McKenzie, 23 Iowa 333; Rusk v. Fenton, 14 Bush 490. It would be a fraud on appellant, under the circumstances shown in this case, to permit the respondent, not a lunatic, but a man of weak mind, to take the property of appellant, dispose of it, or place it beyond his reach, and then come back upon him and recover in this action. It is not pretended that appellant was notified before his trade with respondent or had any knowledge whatever of respondent's condition; and it is clear from the testimony, that appellant did not know, or even suspect any want of competency of respondent to contract.

B. R. Dysart for respondent, argued that the evidence tended to show that both the appellant and his agent, Brown, knew that they were dealing with an insane man, and that in all cases where the insanity is known to the other party or might have been discovered by ordinary diligence, the courts will compel him to rescind the contract and return the consideration to the insane person, citing Tolson v. Garner, 15 Mo. 494; Bishop on Contracts, §§ 294, 295; Farley v. Parker, 6 Oregon 105; s. c., 25 Am. Rep. 504; Dexter v. Hall, 15 Wall. 20; Henry v. Fine, 23 Ark. 417; Lancaster Co. Bank v. Moore, 78 Pa. St. 407; s. c., 21 Am. Rep. 24; Rusk v. Fenton, 14 Bush 490; s. c., 29 Am. Rep. 413; Bishop on Contracts, § 267; Betts v. Carroll, 6 Mo. App. 518.

NORTON, J.

This is an action of replevin commenced before a justice of the peace to recover the possession of a horse, on the trial of which plaintiff obtained judgment, and on appeal to the circuit court of Macon county judgment was again rendered for plaintiff, from which defendant has appealed to this court. It appears from the evidence that on the 1st day of February, 1876, plaintiff, Halley, exchanged horses with defendant, and on the same day exchanged the mare he got of defendant to one Brown for an old and worthless pony. In a short time thereafter R. F. Polson, the present guardian of plaintiff, brought the said pony to Troester and demanded the horse he got of Halley in the exchange, on the ground that Halley was insane and incapable of making contracts. On the 6th day of February, 1876, Polson was appointed guardian and curator of the estate of said Halley, he having been adjudged to be incapable of managing his own affairs, and on the 9th day of February, 1876, as such guardian, commenced the present suit to recover the horse given by Halley to Troester for his mare. There was no conflict in the evidence in reference to the mental condition of Halley, and it shows clearly that Halley had no capacity either to make contracts or transact business, and that his want of capacity in this respect was apparent to any person of ordinary prudence and observation who might converse with him. The evidence also showed that the defendant made the exchange of horses through one Brown, as his agent, and immediately after the exchange, if not cotemporaneous with it, Brown received from Halley the mare Halley received in exchange, giving Halley therefor an old, worthless...