Lindsey v. Lindsey

• Decision Date: 28 February 1879
• Parties: Lindsey. v. Lindsey.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

62 Ga. 546

Lindsey. v. Lindsey.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(February Term, 1879.)

Page 546*

Charge of Court. Contracts. Equity. Before Judge Han-sell. Berrien Superior Court. September Term, 1878.

John Lindsey filed his bill against his son, Benj. F. Lindsey, alleging, in brief, as follows:

In 1860 he was stricken with paralysis. It caused him much suffering, made his mind give way, and induced a fear that his property would all be lost because of his inability to attend to his business. His mind was so feeble from disease and age, that he could not understand his business nor the nature and consequences of his actions, and, being much persuaded by his children and others, he was prevailed upon to convey to his said son, on the 16th of January, 1867, certain lands (being his plantation) for the consideration specified in said conveyance viz.: $5.00 cash, and "that the said Benjamin F. Lindsey for the remainder of his (the father's) declining days, shall take care of him and provide him suitable clothing and comfortable provisions and bedding, suitable to his circumstances and connections in life, and look after his estate, and manage it for the best interest of the estate when he (the father) was unable to look after it himself, and do all things necessary and proper to be done, and with the same care and attention as though he (the son) were looking after his own affairs.

*He signed the deed but never delivered it. He put it into his trunk and subsequently destroyed it. Subse-quently his son had a copy of the deed established, a jury finding that it had been delivered. The jury was tampered with by third persons

His son took possession of the land under promise to comply with his said obligations, but failed to maintain and support him, neglected his property, and by petty annoyances compelled him to abandon his house and seek shelter elsewhere. And yet he refuses to reconvey said premises to the father.

Discovery was waived. The prayer was for the cancellation of the deed, for an accounting for the rents, issues and profits of the land during the son's occupancy, and for general relief.

The answer of the son admitted complainant's age and that, by paralysis, his physical and mental vigor were impaired; but denied that the maker of the deed did not fully understand its effect, and said it was freely made; that it was delivered; that he took possession under it and fulfilled all his obligations therein assumed; and that the father abandoned his house without fault of the son. He said the fact of delivery had been decided by the jury, and that they were not tampered with.

As to the main facts involved in the bail and answer, the evidence was very conflicting—especially as to the competency of the complainant to make the deed.

The jury found for defendant. Complainant moved for a new trial on the following, among other grounds: 1. Because the court refused to charge the following request: "When the party executing an instrument is a weak man and liable to be imposed upon, the court will look upon the circumstances and nature of the transaction with a very jealous eye and will very strictly examine the conduct and behavior of the persons in whose favor it is made. If it sees that any acts or strategies or any undue means have *been used; if it sees the least spark of imposition at the bottom, or that the donor is in such a situation with respect to the donor as may naturally give an undue influence over him; if there be the least scintilla of fraud in such a case the court will and ought to interfere."

2. Because the court charged as follows:

"Every man over 21 years of age is presumed by law to be capable of making a contract, and when a party comes into court and seeks to set aside his own deed upon the ground that he was mentally incompetent at the time, the law throws the burden of proof on him, and he must show by the evidence that he was not competent to contract or transact business. The fact that a man's mind is weak, or that it had been somewhat impaired, by age or disease in part, is not a good ground for setting aside his deed; but it must appear that he was not of sufficient mind to understand the nature and character of the instrument that he was executing, the property of which he was disposing, and the person to whom made and the consideration moving to it. If his mind was sufficiently strong to understand these things, then he was competent to make the deed, and it is binding on him. The law has never marked out a definite and fixed line between capacity and incapacity, because it is...