Kaiser v. Earhart

• Decision Date: 07 March 1887
• Citation: 1 So. 635,64 Miss. 492
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: ISAAC KAISER v. N. B. EARHART

1 So. 635

64 Miss. 492

ISAAC KAISER v. N. B. EARHART

Supreme Court of Mississippi

March 7, 1887

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Wilkinson County, HON. J. B CHRISMAN, Judge.

In 1880 N. B. Earhart and his wife, Heloise Earhart, executed a deed to a certain tract of land to one Samuel Kaiser. In 1882 Mrs Earhart died. In 1885 Samuel Kaiser conveyed this land to Isaac Kaiser, who thereupon brought this action of ejectment against N. B. Earhart for the possession of the land.

The defendant pleaded the general issue. On the trial the plaintiff introduced the deed from Earhart and wife to Samuel Kaiser and the deed from Samuel Kaiser to himself, and rested. The defendant then showed that his wife, Heloise Earhart, died in 1882, and that the land in dispute was acquired by her in 1872 and was occupied by her with her husband as a homestead up to the time of her death; and also introduced evidence which tended to show that Heloise Earhart was a lunatic at the time of the execution of the deed to Samuel Kaiser. The jury found for the plaintiff. The court granted the defendant a new trial, and on the second trial the jury found for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed.

Judgment reversed.

D. C Bramlett, for the appellant.

I submit this case upon a principle of law universally recognized, and resting upon a foundation as secure as anything human can be, and that is that appellee is estopped to deny appellant's right to the possession of the land in controversy. If it be true that Heloise Earhart was a lunatic at the time of the execution of the deed to Samuel Kaiser, then appellee committed a fraud in signing her name joining himself thereto, and delivering the deed, and he will not be permitted to assail his deed or deny it. And should the court be of the opinion that the deed as to the wife is void or voidable, then it is the deed of appellee, with warranty of title, having no title at the time, but afterward acquiring title, on the death of his wife, whose heir-at-law he is and was, and upon the instant his title passed to appellant, and appellee's deed of warranty works an estoppel against him. It is certainly unnecessary to cite authorities in support of this proposition, therefore, for convenience, I refer the court to 3 Wash. on Real Property, 4th ed., pp. 109, 118, 93, and 94. Magee v. Mullen, 1 Cush. 585, and authorities. And by his deed appellee acknowledges the receipt of two hundred and twenty-five dollars, and nowhere denies this in his testimony, and having received the purchase-money he cannot claim against his deed. See 6 Wait's Actions and Defenses 704, § 19.

T. V. Noland and J. H. Jones, for the appellee.

1. The deed was a nullity by reason of the lunacy of the wife and conveyed no interest of any one. Story on Contracts 41a, says, that "either lunacy or idiocy nullifies a contract."

In 9 S. & M. 103 Mr. Justice Clayton says: "The contract should be avoided on proof of mental incapacity, and that is a legal consequence, as it seems to us, depending on the discretion of no court or judge."

A deed may be shown to be void from any cause under a general plea in a court of law. 1 Chitty Pl. 519; 2 Maule & Sel. 349; Story's R. 135.

2. Plaintiff's counsel assumes that defendant was the sole heir of his wife, and that at her death he ceased to be the head of a family. It is true the record...