Jacox v. Jacox

• Decision Date: 09 April 1879
• Citation: 40 Mich. 473
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: Rollin D. Jacox v. Allen B. Jacox and Mary Jacox

40 Mich. 473

Rollin D. Jacox v. Allen B. Jacox and Mary Jacox

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 9, 1879

Submitted January 24, 1879

Appeal from Kent. Submitted Jan. 24. Decided April 9.

Decree affirmed with costs.

H. E Thompson for complainant.

Taggart & Wolcott for defendants. One who seeks to set aside his deed on the ground that it was obtained from him by fraud while he was insane, must show that his mental capacity was insufficient for the proper execution of the deed Jackson v. King, 4 Cow. 207; Lozear v Shields, 23 N.J.Eq. 509; Person v. Warren, 14 Barb. 488; Odell v. Buck, 21 Wend. 142; Sprague v. Duel, 11 Paige 480. The best rule to guide the court in determining whether a person is thought to be insane is the conduct of others towards him. Beck's Med. Juris § 878.

Graves, J. The other Justices concurred.

OPINION

Graves, J.

During the summer and fall of 1872 the complainant was the owner of an eighty-acre farm in Kent county. He was a little more than fifty years of age, and was living on this farm with a second wife whom he had married the preceding February. He had two children: the defendant Allen B. Jacox, husband of defendant Mary, and a daughter, Eveline Buck, wife of Eli S. Buck. They were in comfortable circumstances and lived near by. The mutual relations of all the parties were pleasant so far as appears.

Complainant's farm was worth about $ 2,500, and he owned personal property of the value of about $ 600. His wife had voluntarily advanced to him $ 150, for which he had given her his note, and he was indebted to others for between twenty and thirty dollars. So far as shown, there were no other liabilities except for the year's taxes.

Prior to the season mentioned his health had been generally good and his disposition of a cheerful turn. His habits had been industrious, and in regard to the state of his property, his course had been somewhat precise and cautious, and it seems to have been a noticeable trait of his character to be more anxious than most men as to the possibility of future loss and destitution. No one questioned his ability to manage his affairs.

There was no change until the latter part of the summer of 1872. A drought came on which somewhat affected crops and rendered appearances less promising than they had been, and about the same time a change in complainant's deportment and conduct was observed. It was discovered by his neighbors, and became the subject of talk among them. The epithet employed was that he had the "blues." His usual cheerfulness had left him, and his work was not conducted and attended to as it had been. He became moody and despondent, and fancied he was coming to want and would not be able to take care of himself. At the same time he seems to have embraced the notion that his wife had funds to aid him and declined to let him have them. According to the case there was no rational basis in the state of his affairs or in his wife's possessions or disposition for any of these feelings or apprehensions.

The proof identifies instances of strange behavior, but most of the witnesses who testify to complainant's change speak generally of his condition, and apparently for want of any term more expressive of their idea of his real state, they observe that he had the "blues," or that he had the "blues terrible bad." And here the remark is suggested that the actual conduct of relatives and others at the time in question towards the individual is generally of much greater value as proof of their conception of his mind or capacity than any term they may employ on the stand to express it. This observation is especially applicable to cases where those who are not experts recognize the presence of mental disorder, but do not recognize in such condition a present state of complete insanity. That there is disorder more or less positive and controlling is perceived and admitted, but it is not apprehended as sufficient to constitute complete insanity.

The condition of unsoundness thus distinguished by common observers is recognized as adequate to justify equitable investigation. It is not required that it should come from medical experts that the person was insane, or from those not experts that in their view he was crazy.

In case it appears from the facts that there was mental disorder, but not of a high degree or far advanced, it then becomes material to inquire into the nature of the transaction and the influences leading to it. And if the circumstances disclose that the person under the infirmity, whether through choice, accident or otherwise, was as matter of fact for the time being in the place of ward of the other party, or was by his own consent, however brought about, in a state of submission to the judgment or opinion of the other, a presumption will arise adverse to the justice and equity of the bargain, and the bargainee will be required to show that no advantage was taken and that in itself the arrangement was not only suitable, fair and conscientious, but one expedient under the circumstances and conducive to the interests of the other.

Passing from these general considerations to the record and pursuing the case, we find that in the latter part of December, 1872, and while this abnormal condition of complainant remained without any substantial change, his wife informed Mr. Buck, the son-in-law, that she had decided to separate from her husband, and, in her language, that she "could not stand it with him any longer," and "had got to leave him." She spoke of the strangeness of his behavior, and explained some instances.

It was then arranged that Buck should at once make the impending separation known to the defendant Allen, and he accordingly called upon him in the evening and informed him.

On that occasion complainant's situation and dependence were talked about between the son and son-in-law, and they mutually agreed that in view of the separation it would be immediately necessary for one of them to take care of complainant and of his property.

Their versions differ as to the expressions which were used, Buck swearing that complainant was spoken of as not being right in his mind and as being "crazy," and the defendant Allen swearing that he does not recollect that any thing was said about complainant's being of unsound mind or insane. The circumstance is not important. Their acts are full of meaning, and they concur to show that...