Lewis v. Arbuckle

• Decision Date: 19 May 1892
• Citation: 85 Iowa 335,52 N.W. 237
• Parties: LEWIS ET AL. v. ARBUCKLE ET AL. LEWIS ET AL. v. MILLER ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

85 Iowa 335

52 N.W. 237

LEWIS ET AL.

v.ARBUCKLE ET AL.

LEWIS ET AL.

v.MILLER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 19, 1892.

Appeal from district court, Delaware county; J. J. NEY, Judge.

These two causes were consolidated and tried together in the court below. They are actions in equity to set aside certain deeds executed by Margaret Walsh to Michael Walsh, her son, and to Mary Ann Adams, her daughter; also deeds made by the said Michael and Mary Ann to defendants Arbuckle and Miller,--on the ground that the deed from Margaret Walsh was procured by undue influence. It is averred that Arbuckle and Miller took their deeds with knowledge of the fact that their grantors had acquired title by undue influence and fraud practiced on their mother. Defendants Miller and Arbuckle claim to have purchased in good faith, and for a valuable consideration, and without knowledge or notice that the title of their grantors was obtained by fraud or undue influence. The defendant Walsh was not served with notice, and made no appearance. The defendant Adams denies the allegations of fraud and undue influence, and avers that the conveyance was made to her and Michael Walsh in pursuance of an oral contract, whereby they were to pay certain indebtedness then existing, maintain their mother (the grantor) through life, and at her death erect a monument for her and her husband, pay her funeral expenses, and pay each of the plaintiffs $50. That said contract has been carried out on their part except the payment to the plaintiffs of $50 each, which sum is paid into court for their use. The district court set aside the deed of Margaret Walsh in so far as the same conveyed any interest to Michael Walsh; also set aside the deeds from Michael Walsh and Mary Ann Adams and her husband to James Arbuckle and Frank Miller, so far as they convey any interest of Michael Walsh to Arbuckle and Miller. In all other respects it confirmed title in Arbuckle and Miller to the land conveyed to them, ordered that the money tendered by defendant Adams be turned over to plaintiffs, and taxed the costs to Mary Ann Adams. Mary Ann Adams, James M. Arbuckle, and Frank Miller, defendants, each separately appeal.Yoran & Arnold, for appellants.

Blair, Dunham & Morris, for appellees.

KINNE, J.

1. The plaintiffs and the defendants Mary Ann Adams and Michael Walsh are children of Margaret Walsh, deceased. Less than two months prior to her death she conveyed 80 acres of land to the defendants Mary Ann Adams and Michael Walsh, the consideration named in the deed being $1. Plaintiffs insist that this conveyance was procured by undue influence and false promises, and on the representation of the grantees that they would give the grantor a mortgage on the land for its full value, which said grantees did not do. Defendants' contention is set out above. The facts disclosed by this record are that Margaret Walsh was 80 years old or over, the evidence as to her exact age being indefinite; that her husband died about a year before she executed this deed; that Margaret Lewis, one of the daughters, had resided in Floyd county, Iowa, for two years or more. She visited her mother after her father's death, and wrote her two letters. Catherine McQuirk, another daughter, lived in Sioux county for 12 years, and never visited or saw her mother during all of that time. There is nothing to show that during this time she ever wrote to or in any way communicated with her mother. Ella Merry, another daughter, lived in O'Brien county for six years; visited her parents four years ago. Martin Walsh has lived in California for about 30 years. He has never visited his mother, and, so far as appears, he did not write her for years before her death. Michael Walsh lived with his mother for about a year prior to her death, and cared for her and assisted her in her housework. For several years prior thereto he had been absent, and his whereabouts were unknown to his relatives. Mary Ann Adams had for the last nine years of her mother's life lived just across an alley from her. While the testimony is somewhat conflicting, it is clear that Mrs. Adams helped provide for her mother, assisted her in her house, and in every reasonable way ministered to her comfort and support. We have stated the situation of these children with reference to their mother quite fully, as to our minds it has an important bearing upon the question we must determine. It is clear that for the last nine years of her life the daughter Mrs. Adams was constantly relied upon by her mother for aid and support.

2. A material question is as to the intention of Mrs. Walsh as to selling the land in controversy. It seems that at the time her husband leased the land to Miller she was not satisfied with the amount of rent to be paid. She and her husband wanted to sell the land at least three years prior to her death. She then complained that they were not getting enough out of it to support them. The plaintiff Lewis, in October, 1888, thought her mother had better sell the land, take the money, and use it. After her husband's death Mrs. Walsh borrows money on the land to pay debts which had accumulated. During the holidays in 1888, she tells John Lewis the farm did not bring enough to live on, and that she and Mike had tried to sell it, and could not find any one to buy. In January, 1889, she offered to sell it to defendant Miller, but he thought her price too high. There is no question from the testimony that the intent to sell this land had been in Mrs. Walsh's mind for several years, and it was not the result of the influence of any one. It is equally clear that originally she intended to give this land to the defendant Adams. She told Grimes so, and gave as a reason the absence in the west of the other girls, the fact that they paid no attention to her, did not help her, nor write to her. In a conversation with Mrs. Sloan the fall before her death Mrs. Walsh spoke of Mrs. Adams' kindness in providing for her, and said she was going to give Mary Ann the biggest part of her property, on account of her kindness.

3. Was there any undue, influence? We may say that much evidence was introduced which is...