Jarrett v. Jarrett
| Decision Date | 17 November 1877 |
| Parties | JOSEPH JARRETT et al. v. SAMUEL JARRETT et al. JOSEPH JARRETT et al. v. JAMES JARRETT et al. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
1. Mere inadequacy of price is not in itself sufficient to justify a court of equity in setting aside a deed.
2. Old age is not in itself sufficient evidence of incapacity to make a deed.
3. The point of time to be looked to by the court or jury, in determining the competency of a grantor to make a deed, is that when the deed was executed.
4. The condition of the grantor's mind, both before and after the execution of the deed, is proper to be considered in determining, what was his mental condition at the time, the deed was executed.
5. It requires more capacity to make a valid deed, than it does to make a will.
6. The presumption of law is always in favor of sanity at the time the deed was executed, of a person whose deed is brought in question; and the burden of proof then lies upon him, who asserts unsoundness of mind; unless a previous state of insanity has been established; in which case the burden is shifted to him who claims under the deed.
7. The evidence of witnesses present at the execution of the deed is entitled to peculiar weight.
8. The evidence of physicians, especially those who attended the grantor, and were with him considerably during the time it is charged he was of unsound mind, is entitled to great weight.
9. Next to physicians and those who were present at the time the deed was executed, either as attesting witnesses or otherwise, are those, whose intimacy in the family has given them an opportunity of seeing the party at all times, and watching the operations of his mind.
10. The mere opinions of witnesses not experts are entitled to little or no regard unless they are supported by good reasons founded on facts which warrant them: and if the reasons and facts upon which they are founded are frivolous the opinions of such witnesses are worth but little or nothing.
11. Where a legal capacity is shown to exist in the grantor, and he had sufficient understanding to clearly comprehend the nature of the business, and he consented freely to the special matter about which he was engaged, and no fraud or undue influence is shown to have been used to bring about the result, the validity of the deed cannot be impeached, however unreasonable, imprudent or unaccountable, it may seem to others.
12. Even after a verdict is rendered by a jury on an issue out of chancery, if upon the proofs, as they stood at the hearing an issue ought not to have been ordered, it is the duty of the chancellor, notwithstanding the verdict, to set aside the order directing the issue, and enter a decree on the merits as disclosed by the proofs on the hearing, when the issue was directed.
13. It is the duty of an appellate court, in reviewing a decree founded on the verdict of a jury rendered on an issue out of chancery, to look to the state of the proofs at the time the issue was ordered, and if satisfied that the chancellor had improperly exercised his discretion in directing the issue to render a decree, notwithstanding the verdict, according to the merits as disclosed by the proofs on the hearing when the issue was ordered.
14. The chancellor may in the exercise of his discretion either direct an issue, or refuse to do so; but this discretion must be properly exercised, and a mistake in its exercise is just ground of appeal.
15. Where there is such a conflict of evidence, that it is so nearly balanced, as to make it doubtful, on which side is the preponderance, an issue ought to be directed; but where, though there be a conflict, it is not of such character, no issue ought to be ordered.
16. Such doubt in the mind of the chancellor must not be a factitious but a reasonable one, justified by such conflict of the evidence.
17. Section 4 of chapter 131 of the Code does not change the general chancery practice as to the ordering of issues; it only specifies where the issue may be tried, in the circuit court that directs it, or any other circuit court it may designate.
18. Under section 59 of chapter 125 of the Code the only effect of an answer, responsive to any material allegation of the bill, is to put the plaintiff on proof as to such allegation.
Upon the petition of Samuel Jarrett and James Jarrett, Jr., an appeal was granted from, and supersedeas allowed to, a decree of the circuit court of Greenbrier county, rendered at its October term 1873, in three causes in chancery, in said court then pending, which were heard together, and which were instituted by Joseph Jarrett and others heirs of James Jarrett, deceased, against Samuel Jarrett, James Jarrett, Jr., and others, the object being to set aside four deeds executed by said James Jarrett in his life time, to said Joseph Jarrett, James Jarrett, Jr., and one Samuel Leonard by which decree the bill as against Leonard was dismissed and the deeds to the petitioners, Samuel Jarrett and James Jarrett, Jr., were set aside.
Hon. Homer A. Holt, Judge of the eighth judicial circuit, rendered the decree complained of.
In July 1870, Joseph Jarrett and others, heirs-at-law of James Jarrett, deceased, filed their bill in the circuit court of Greenbrier county, against James Jarrett and others, also heirs of said James Jarrett, deceased, which bill is in substance as follows:
That complainants and defendants are the heirs-at-law of James Jarrett, deceased; that said James Jarrett died on the 24th of February, 1870, intestate; that he had been the owner and in possession of large and valuable tracts of land; that for many years before his death he had been in exceedingly low health, confined for the greater part of the time to his house and bed, and so afflicted that for much of that period, and for a long time continuously before his death, his mind was so much impaired as to render him wholly incapable of attending to, or transacting any business; that to such an extent had his mental inability progressed, that none of the business transactions which he attempted for several years preceding his death, could be held valid and binding upon him during his life, nor can they be now so held, or regarded by the court; that said James Jarrett had great confidence in the business capacity of his son, the defendant, James Jarrett, who is, and was an intelligent business man, and had acquired that influence over his father in his weakened and imbecile condition, that enabled him to manage and control the old gentleman as he choose; that availing himself of this condition of things, he succeeded by fraud, misrepresentation and deceit, in obtaining from his father several tracts of land, for prices greatly below their actual value, which he now holds.
The plaintiffs charge particularly, that by fraud and deceit in 1861 he so imposed upon the said James Jarrett, as to obtain a conveyance for a tract of land on Wolf creek, in Monroe county, West Virginia, containing____ acres, at a price entirely inadequate, paying for the land, with the corn, bacon, stock, & c., upon, it, which corn, bacon, stock, & c., were worth several thousand dollars, only the sum of $10,000.00; while, for the land itself, the said James Jarrett had at one time been offered $20,000.00, at another, $15,000.00, in gold; that this pretended purchase was made about the commencement of the war, when, in addition to the infirmities resulting from old age, the health of the said James Jarrett was much disturbed by the excitement incident to the war; and his mind was in such a condition as to render any deed, he might attempt to make, invalid and void; that the said defendant, not relying upon the conveyance obtained at the time of said purchase, went before the Legislature of West Virginia after the war closed, and, without notice to any one, procured what he claims to be a ratification of the said deed; but which the plaintiffs claim can have no effect to give validity thereto; that subsequently, by the same fraudulent and deceitful means, he procured from his father a new conveyance for the same lands, at a time when his mental condition was weaker, and more impaired, if possible, than when the first conveyance was made; at a time, in fact, when he was entirely and hopelessly non compos mentis ; and the plaintiffs further charge, that in 1868, when the said James Jarrett was in the same imbecile condition, the defendant, James Jarrett, by fraud and imposition succeeded in procuring from his father a deed for four hundred and thirty acres of land on Muddy creek, in the county of Greenbrier, known as the " home place," for a price far below its real value, paying only $25.00 per acre therefor, when it was worth from $50.00 to $75.00 per acre. The prayer of the bill is, that said deeds of conveyance be set aside and annulled, and the lands partitioned, or sold and the proceeds distributed among the heirs-at-law of said James Jarrett, deceased; and for general relief.
James Jarrett answered the bill, admitting that he had purchased the two tracts of land described in the bill, and that he had received deeds from his father for the same; and that he is in possession of both said tracts and claims title thereto under the said conveyances. He denies every material allegation or charge in the bill, in relation to his father's imbecility, or inability to make a valid conveyance at the times the deeds were made, and every charge of fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit; in short, everything in the bill impeaching the validity of the said deeds, or either of them.
Neither the bill nor answer is sworn to.
The plaintiffs at the same time filed a bill...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cunningham v. Hedrick
... ... make the contract and of its fairness. Nicholas v ... Kershner, 20 W.Va. 251, and Jarrett v. Jarrett, ... 11 W.Va. 584. But it is strenuously contended, that, because ... there was no reply in writing filed to the answer, its ... ...