Hooper v. Vanstrum
| Decision Date | 24 June 1904 |
| Docket Number | 13,798 - (80) |
| Citation | 100 N.W. 229,92 Minn. 406 |
| Parties | LILLIE LAURA HOOPER v. ARTHUR J. VANSTRUM |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the district court for Kittson county, entered pursuant to the findings and order of Watts, J. Reversed and new trial ordered.
Gift of Real Property.
A voluntary gift of land may be upheld, if no fraud is practiced by or for the grantee, where the relationship of the parties and the beneficial character of the gift are such as would naturally justify the belief that the grantor intended to make and complete the same.
Effect of Recording Deed.
But when the possession of the conveyance is retained by the record owner, without a present intention to part with the absolute dominion of the property, and the grantee has no notice thereof, the record of such conveyance is ineffective to transfer title.
Evidence.
Evidence considered, and held that the record of a conveyance was insufficient to show a purpose to part with the ownership of real property by the grantor, who executed the same, but retained it in his possession until his death by suicide without giving any notice thereof to the grantee, and that the finding of the trial court that such record was made with such purpose is not sustained.
John Lind and A. Ueland, for appellant.
H Steenerson and Charles Loring, for respondent.
Action to determine adverse claims to real estate. The court made findings to the effect that defendant was the owner of the property -- a lot in the village of Hallock -- and ordered judgment in accordance with the findings which were entered. Plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff is the daughter of J. A. Vanstrum, deceased, who at the time of his death, November 29, 1902, was register of deeds of Kittson county. She claimed title under a duly probated will devising her father's entire estate, valued at about $10,000. Defendant is the nephew of deceased, and claims under a warranty deed of the property in question, having the consideration of $1,000 stated therein, and appearing to have been executed with the requisite legal formalities. The deed was on October 25, 1902, recorded by the grantor, but retained by him among his papers, where it was found after his death, and the material question is whether this conveyance establishes a superior right in the grantee to that of the devisee.
Premising to a better understanding of the facts found by the court, it is proper to state that some twenty years before this action there was a legal separation between deceased and his wife. The wife went with plaintiff, the only daughter of the marriage, to California, where both have resided ever since, and all relations between her, the mother, and testate were severed from the time of the divorce. The defendant and his brother F. O. Vanstrum reside at Minneapolis, where they are in the clothing business. The relations between them and the deceased had been very cordial and friendly. In April, 1897, deceased executed a will devising to the nephews his entire estate. For some time previous to the execution of the deed to defendant, the deceased became afflicted with insane delusions, which affected his health, and to some extent his understanding, although he was capable of conducting his ordinary business affairs and his official duties as register of deeds; but he was possessed of the unfounded impression that a lady in the village of Hallock was malignantly endeavoring to injure him by throwing flashlights upon him, which mania destroyed his peace of mind and ultimately led to self-destruction. The will to the daughter was executed subsequent to the deed to the defendant, and necessarily took precedence of the former will to the nephews. There was no consideration, in fact, for the deed of the lot in Hallock, which was worth about $1,500. After the suicide it was found among the papers of deceased, which conveyed the first knowledge defendant had of an intention by the grantor to make the voluntary gift to him.
At the trial the contention of the plaintiff was that the deed of defendant was not executed by a person possessing the proper alienary mental capacity, and that it had not been delivered, or that there was not sufficient evidence to show that it had been executed and recorded with the present intent to deliver the same to the grantee, but, rather, to prevent the supposed enemy of the deceased from subjecting it to suits for damages on account of remarks and statements made derogatory to her.
The trial court found, among other things, in terms as follows:
That John A. Vanstrum when he made the deed was not subject to delusions or insanity to such an extent as to render him incapable of executing or delivering it, or influencing him in the disposition of his property, and that when he made...
To continue reading
Request your trial