Kempf v. Koppa

• Decision Date: 09 June 1906
• Docket Number: 14,670
• Citation: 74 Kan. 153,85 P. 806
• Parties: KATHERINE E. KEMPF et al. v. WILLIAM KOPPA et al
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

85 P. 806

74 Kan. 153

KATHERINE E. KEMPF et al. v. WILLIAM KOPPA et al

No. 14,670

Supreme Court of Kansas

June 9, 1906

Decided January, 1906.

Error from Atchison district court; BENJAMIN F. HUDSON, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. INSANE PERSONS--Proof of Insanity. A wide range of testimony is allowed in cases involving mental capacity, and, as a general rule, any and all conduct of the one whose sanity is in question is admissible in evidence.

2. INSANE PERSONS--Opinion Testimony as to Mental Condition. An unprofessional witness, who has had adequate opportunities to observe the conduct, declarations and appearance of a person alleged to be insane, is competent to form and express an opinion as to the mental condition of such person.

3. INSANE PERSONS--Non-expert Witness Held Qualified. The qualifications of a witness examined, and it is held, that his opportunities and powers of observation were such as to make his opinion admissible.

Jackson & Jackson, and Means & Archer, for plaintiffs in error.

Waggener, Doster & Orr, for defendants in error.

JOHNSTON C. J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

JOHNSTON, C. J.

Christian Deuhn and Cecelia Deuhn, who were advanced in years, entered into a contract with William Koppa by which they conveyed to him a tract of land, the consideration being that he should assume and pay a mortgage on the land and should pay to them $ 400 per year during their lifetime, or pay that amount during the lifetime of either of them. The Deuhns had no children, and after both had died some of their heirs brought this suit, attacking the validity of the deed and contract upon the ground that at the time of their execution Mrs. Deuhn was mentally incapable and did not understand the nature and effect of her acts. In trying this issue the court called a jury and submitted to them the single question, "Was Cecelia Deuhn, on the 19th day of November, 1903, at the time said contract and deed were made and executed, mentally competent to know and understand the business or transaction in which she was engaged when making said contract and deed?" To this question an affirmative answer was made. The court took the same view of the facts and found that Mrs. Deuhn was sane and capable when she executed the instruments, and accordingly gave judgment against the plaintiffs.

The principal question presented here arises on the ruling permitting J. P. Adams to express an opinion as to the mental capacity of Mrs. Deuhn. The witness is an attorney who had an acquaintance with the Deuhns and had transacted business for them. When the condition of Mrs. Deuhn's mind became a question Adams visited and conversed with her, observed her acts, declarations and manner, and later expressed the opinion in court that she was mentally capable. In addition he testified as to her conversation with him and her conduct in his presence. A wide range of testimony is allowed in cases where mental capacity is in question. It is a general rule that any and all conduct of the person is admissible in evidence. (1 Wig. Ev. § 228.) About the time of the execution of the deed in question the witness was with Mrs Deuhn at dinner and...