Looby v. Redmond

• Decision Date: 19 July 1895
• Citation: 34 A. 102,66 Conn. 444
• Parties: LOOBY v. REDMOND et ux.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

34 A. 102

66 Conn. 444

LOOBY

v. REDMOND et ux.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 19, 1895.

Appeal from superior court, New Haven county; George W. Wheeler, Judge.

Suit by Peter Looby against James J. Redmond and wife to set aside a conveyance of land. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Modified.

Henry Stoddard and Charles A. Harrison, for appellants.

William L. Bennett and Leverett M. Hubbard, for appellee.

ANDREWS, C. J. The defendants were summoned to appear in court to answer unto Peter Looby, "who brings this suit with the advice and consent of his conservator, William Looby, Jr." These words do not make William Looby, Jr., in any proper sense, a party to this action. The statute respecting conservators has been somewhat changed in the recent revisions, and there have been some instances—where a conservator has been in fact appointed over an incapable person— in which suits like the present one have been brought in the name of the conservator, as such. Baker v. Potter, 51 Conn. 78; Nichols v. McCarthy, 53 Conn. 299, 23 Atl. 93; Palmer v. Cheseboro, 55 Conn. 114, 10 Atl. 508. In these cases no question was raised as to the authority of the conservator, and perhaps they ought not to be regarded as establishing a precedent. The conservator is not, however, a strictly necessary party; for in this state a man may allege his own disability, to set aside his contract. Webster v. Woodford, 3 Day, 90; 1 Swift, Dig. 180. The question is not of very great practical importance in this case. It has been treated from the first as though the conservator was a party plaintiff, as well as Peter Looby, and no one has taken any exception to it. Still, it cannot be overlooked that Peter Looby is the only responsible plaintiff on the record.

The complaint, after stating that Peter Looby was on the 1st day of January, 1890, the owner of certain real estate in the town of Wallingford, of the value of $10,000, and describing it, says: "On said 1st day of January, 1890, the mental powers and faculties of said Peter Looby had become weak and enfeebled by age and bodily infirmity, and he continued to become more imbecile and weak in intellect as he advanced in life, so that he was incapable of properly managing business affairs, by reason of his mental imbecility; and the defendant James J. Redmond, on or, about the——day of——, 1890, began to ingratiate himself into his confidence, and to collect rentals from the tenants, and in various other ways to conduct and manage the business affairs of said Peter Looby, and continued to do so until the 24th day of January, 1893, when he took advantage of the said Peter's imbecility and infirmity, and prevailed upon and persuaded him to give and convey to him, the said James J. Redmond, and to his wife, the said Elizabeth, said real estate; and on said 24th day of January, 1893, when the said Peter was extremely debilitated in his mind and infirm in his body, he, the said James J. Redmond, obtained entire control over him, and corruptly and wickedly took advantage of his relation and connection with him, and by reason of his influence, importunities, and ascendancy over him, and of said Peter's mental imbecility and bodily infirmity, did defraud him of his property, and, by his cunning and artifice, did induce said Peter on said 24th day of January, 1893, at Wallingford aforesaid, to make, execute, and deliver to said Elizabeth T. Redmond a warranty deed of said real estate; and neither of said defendants paid anything for the same, but the said Elizabeth T. Redmond holds it by said fraudulent deed." The complaint prayed for a reconveyance of the said property to the plaintiff, and for damages.

The cause was referred to a committee, whose report gives at some length the life and history of the plaintiff; his peculiarities; his weaknesses of body and mind; his associations with his own kindred and with the defendants. We have condensed it here into a summary. It is this: Peter Looby was born in Ireland, came to this country about 45 years ago, and is now more than 60 years old. He has always been a man of weak mind, disinclined to manual labor, and incapable of attending to business, except such as was simple and easy. He has become almost blind; totally blind in one eye, and the sight of the other nearly gone. He is a widower, childless, with no kindred in this country, save two sisters and some nephews and nieces. His relatives had quarreled with him. They had had a lawsuit which resulted unfavorably to him. At that time there was a good deal of friction and irritation existing between them, but this had subsided, and friendly feelings were so far restored that one of his sisters was a tenant in one of his houses. His wife died in 1883, and since that time he has substantially given up labor; has ceased to keep house, but boards. He was possessed of some property, consisting of houses suitable for renting, and these he rented. In 1890 he was dangerously sick with pneumonia for several months. Since the death of his wife he had fallen behind in his financial matters, and he began to apply to Redmond for aid, though it did not appear exactly when. At first Redmond assisted him in collecting rents when a tenant got behind, and he did not know what to do; and, on request, Redmond would see the tenant and take care of the matter. The plaintiff has undertaken other business matters, moved one of his houses, and erected a block, with stores on the lower floor and tenements over it, and obtained the money for doing this work by notes and' mortgages to savings banks and to others. All these matters were done upon the advice and with the assistance of Redmond, and the property has been increased in value. During all this time nothing has been lost. Redmond has paid over all the rents he has collected, and accounted for all the money he has received. During all this time, up to the time the said deed was given, Redmond had received nothing for his services, nor did he render any bill for them. Occasionally he had asked Looby what he was going to get for his services, but it did not appear that anything further was said with reference to compensating Redmond.

The report, from these facts, finds that Looby had come to have great confidence in Redmond, and to desire that Redmond, and not his own kindred, should have his property after his death, and that he proposed to Redmond to transfer the property to him, so that he (Redmond) would have it after the death of Looby, if Redmond would pay to him $25 per month as long as he lived. Redmond did not at once accept this offer. He thought, and said to Looby, that he could not afford to pay more than $20 per month. Looby replied that he could not get along for less than $25 per month. What other negotiations were had, if any, does not appear; but at' Redmond's request that the property, if conveyed at all, should be deeded to his wife, instead of to himself, Looby did convey it to her, by a warranty deed, on the 24th day of January, 1893. He deeded it to her because Mr. Redmond requested it to be so done. The consideration of this deed was the oral promise of Mr. and Mrs. Redmond to take care of the property, pay the interest on the mortgages and the other charges against it, and also pay the $25 per month to Looby so long as Looby should live; and it was also expected and intended that they should pay all his indebtedness. At the date of the deed the property ought "to have been worth $15,000, although such value has been greatly depreciated by the industrial depression which has prevailed since that time." It is mortgaged to the amount of $8,100, and is subject to fixed annual charges amounting to $624.50. It now brings in $57 monthly. In good times it ought to bring $1,000 annually. The principal inducement and motive in the mind of Looby to make the deed was that Redmond should have the property at his death, it being supposed and expected that Redmond would continue to take charge of it as he had been doing for a few years previously. In the conversation that led up to the giving of the deed, Looby consulted no outsider, and took and received no independent advice, concerning the transaction. Looby had, and still has, knowledge of what his property consisted, had and has his own ideas of its value, and knew the amount of the rents and the net income of the property at the time of the transfer: knew who would be his heirs at his death, but preferred and intended, and still prefers, that his property should not go to his heirs at his death, but to the Redmonds, according to the deed. He did not thoroughly understand the effect and scope of the deed which he gave, but thought, and continues to think, that the property was subject to his control and ownership, if he ever should require such control and ownership. Neither Redmond nor his wife ever solicited, urged, or persuaded Looby into giving the deed, nor did it appear that they suggested or advised him to take independent advice in respect to giving the deed. But if it had not been for the confidential relations between Looby and Redmond, and the confidence of Looby in Redmond, the deed would never have been made. Looby attended the hearing before the committee, and was a witness in favor of the defendants. He desired that the deed should not be set aside or disturbed. Such was and still is his confidence in Redmond that he believed, and still believes, that he will somehow be properly taken care of by the Redmonds during his life, and his ordinary habits and wants are very simple. Since the giving of...