Hull v. Louth

• Decision Date: 01 February 1887
• Docket Number: 11,520
• Citation: 10 N.E. 270,109 Ind. 315
• Parties: Hull v. Louth, Guardian, et al
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

10 N.E. 270

109 Ind. 315

Hull v. Louth, Guardian, et al

No. 11,520

Supreme Court of Indiana

February 1, 1887

From the Tippecanoe Superior Court.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

D Turpie, G. O. Behm, A. O. Behm, H. W. Chase, F. S. Chase and F. W. Chase, for appellant.

B. W Langdon and T. F. Gaylord, for appellees.

OPINION

Zollars, J.

Appellant instituted this suit to recover judgment on a promissory note, and to foreclose a mortgage securing the same. The note and mortgage were executed by appellee Henry C. Taylor, on the 2d day of May, 1877. Emma J. Taylor and Emanuel Eichholtz were made parties defendants to the suit, the averment in the complaint as to them being that they claimed some interest in, or lien upon, the real estate described in the mortgage.

Upon the petition of Clark Louth, as guardian of Emma J. Taylor he was let in to make a defence, and filed an answer in which he alleged that in 1862, Chesebrough Taylor, the father of Emma J. Taylor, was the owner of the land described in the mortgage; that in that year, he and his wife conveyed the same in fee simple to said Emma J., and that the deed was recorded in 1867; that in June, 1871, Emma J. executed a deed of conveyance of said land to appellee Henry C. Taylor, without any valuable consideration, and that the deed was duly recorded in the same month; that subsequent to the recording of the deed to him, Henry C. executed the note and mortgage in suit; that in 1883, Emma J. was adjudged to be, and to always have been, a person of unsound mind, and incapable of managing her estate, and that Louth was appointed her guardian; that, in fact, at the time she executed the deed to Henry C. she was, and always had been, a person of unsound mind, and incapable of executing or understanding the deed, or of managing her estate; that by reason thereof, Henry C. acquired no title to the land, and that, therefore, the mortgage in suit was not a lien upon the land.

The guardian also filed a cross complaint against the appellant and the other defendants, appellees herein.

The averments in the cross complaint, as to the mortgage, and the deed from Emma J. to Henry C., are substantially the same as in the answer.

There are additional averments, that Eichholtz claims to own the land by virtue of a judgment against Henry C., and a sheriff's sale thereon; that upon the recording of her deed from her father, Emma J. was put in possession of the land, and has ever since been, and now is, in the possession thereof.

The prayer is, that appellant's mortgage, and the deed from Emma J. to Henry C., be declared of no effect, and that her title to the land be quieted as against all of the other parties to the suit.

Appellant answered the cross complaint, in substance, that in 1871, Emma J., by a warranty deed, conveyed the land to Henry C. Taylor, and that the deed was properly recorded in the same month; that in 1874, Henry C., then living on the land, executed a mortgage thereon to one Holmes, to secure a loan of $ 500, and at the same time executed another mortgage thereon to one Jones, to secure $ 126, which mortgages were duly recorded; that the note and mortgage in suit were given to secure a loan of money to pay off the two prior mortgages, and to pay delinquent taxes against the land; that appellant loaned the money to Henry C. in good faith, relying wholly upon the public records of deeds and mortgages, and without any knowledge that Emma J. was suspected of being of unsound mind; that up to the time when she executed the deed to her son, Henry C., there had been no question made by any one as to the soundness of her mind, and that she had managed her affairs without any appearance of mental incapacity.

The third paragraph of appellant's answer to the cross complaint was, in substance, that when he loaned the money to Henry C., and accepted the note and mortgage in suit, and before Emma J. had been adjudged of unsound mind, Henry C. was in possession of the land, using and cultivating it with her knowledge and consent; that appellant made the loan to Henry C., and paid to him the amount of the note and mortgage, without any knowledge that Emma J. claimed to have any interest in the land, or that she was of unsound mind, and without any fraud, or undue advantage, and for the purpose of enabling Henry C. to pay delinquent taxes, and other encumbrances upon the land, created by him in the support of his mother, Emma J., and himself, while living on the land.

Appellant's replies to the guardian's answer are substantially the same as his answers to the cross complaint.

As will be observed, these averments in the guardian's answer and cross complaint are not denied in or by appellant's answers and replies, viz.: The conveyance from Emma J. to Henry C. was without any valuable consideration. At the time of the conveyance, she was of unsound mind, incapable of making or understanding the deed, or of managing her estate.

She was adjudged to be of unsound mind, and placed under guardianship after this suit was commenced.

The demurrer to appellant's answers and replies admitted as true the averments, that the deeds and mortgages therein mentioned were recorded before appellant made the loan to, and accepted the mortgage from, Henry C.; that appellant loaned to Henry C., while he was living on the land, $ 800, to enable him to pay off the prior mortgages placed on the land by him, and to enable him to pay delinquent taxes against the land; that up to the time Emma J. executed the deed to Henry C., she managed her estate without any appearance of mental incapacity, and that up to that time no question had been made by any one as to the soundness of her mind; that appellant made the loan upon the faith of the public records of deeds and mortgages, in good faith, and without any knowledge that Emma J. was of unsound mind. It is not averred, as will be observed, in the answer and cross complaint by the guardian, that appellant knew that the deed from Emma J. to Henry C. was without any valuable consideration; nor is it averred in appellant's answers and replies, that he did not have such knowledge. It is not averred in his answers and replies, that the money received from him was actually applied by Henry C. in payment of delinquent taxes and the prior mortgages; nor is it averred that the delinquent taxes accrued before the execution of the deed to Henry C. It is not averred in the guardian's answer and cross complaint, that Henry C. had knowledge of the unsoundness of the mind of Emma J. at the time he accepted the deed from her. Neither is it averred in appellant's answers and replies, that he did not have such knowledge.

Whether the deed from Emma J. to Henry C. be regarded as void, or as voidable, it must be clear, upon the undisputed facts stated in the pleadings, that, as between them, her guardian has the right, in this action, to have the deed set aside, and the title to the land quieted in her.

It can not be said, that as between them, she was bound to make restitution, and thus place the parties in statu quo, because she received nothing for the conveyance, nor did Henry C. suffer any loss or inconvenience thereby.

It is averred in appellant's answers and replies, that he loaned the money to Henry C. to enable him to pay off the prior mortgages and delinquent taxes against the land. The prior mortgages were put upon the land by Henry C. after he received the deed from Emma J., and it is in no way made to appear by the averments in any of the pleadings, that either of those mortgages was given to secure a debt or debts due from her, or that she received any of the money borrowed by Henry C., to secure the payment of which one of the mortgages was given by him, or that any of it was used or applied in any way for her benefit.

It is not averred in any of the pleadings, that the delinquent taxes accrued prior to her deed to Henry C.; nor is it averred in any of the pleadings that the money received from appellant by Henry C. was applied by him in payment of the prior mortgages or the delinquent taxes.

In short, there is nothing in appellant's answers and replies to meet the averments in the guardian's answer and cross complaint, that Emma J. received nothing for the conveyance from her to Henry C. North-Western Mut. F. Ins. Co. v. Blankenship, 94 Ind. 535 (48 Am. R. 185). Nor can it be said, that as a condition precedent to the setting aside of the deed, she, or her guardian, must have disaffirmed the deed. As her mental incapacity has been continuous, she could not disaffirm, if that were necessary; and as her guardian was not appointed until after the suit was commenced, he could not have disaffirmed the deed before the bringing of the suit.

The filing of the answer and cross complaint by the guardian was a sufficient disaffirmance on his part, as the representative of Emma J. When persons of unsound mind are brought into court by a suit to enforce contracts made by them, it will not do to hold that they may not, by their guardian, make the defence that, when the contract was made, they were of unsound mind. Northwestern Mut. F. Ins. Co. v. Blankenship, supra. See, also, Copenrath v. Kienby, 83 Ind. 18; Musselman v. Cravens, 47 Ind. 1.

It is averred in appellant's answers and replies, that up to the time when Emma J. made the deed to Henry C., she had managed her business without any appearance of incapacity on her part, but it is nowhere averred, that at the time the deed was executed, she was not of unsound mind, and incapable of understanding the deed, or its effect. Nor is it anywhere averred that at the time the deed was made, Henry C. did not know that she was of unsound mind, and wholly incapable of comprehending the...