Matthis v. O'Brien

• Decision Date: 18 March 1910
• Citation: 126 S.W. 156,137 Ky. 651
• Parties: MATTHIS v. O'BRIEN.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

126 S.W. 156

137 Ky. 651

MATTHIS v. O'BRIEN.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 18, 1910

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hardin County.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Nat Matthis against Virgil P. O'Brien. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

L. A Faurest and R. L. Stith, for appellant.

Williams & Handley and Irvin & Irvin, for appellee.

CARROLL J.

The appellant, an unmarried man, brought this action to cancel a conveyance and contract alleged to have been fraudulently procured by the appellee while he, the appellant, was under the influence of intoxicating liquors to such an extent that he was not capable of transacting business. It was further alleged that the property obtained under the conveyance and contract was secured by fraud and overreaching at a grossly inadequate price. The facts are substantially these: The appellant, who is of nature years, was greatly addicted to the habit of becoming intoxicated. When not under the influence of liquor he was an industrious, deserving intelligent man and a good carpenter; but his thirst for liquor was so great that when once he took a drink he seemed to lose all control of his mental as well as moral faculties could be easily persuaded to do almost anything, had no idea of the value of money, and no capacity to attend to business. He would sell or pawn his clothing or carpenter tools or anything that he had at any price for the purpose of getting whisky. The evidence of his unfortunate habits in this respect is conclusive.

The appellee is the nephew of the appellant, and knew his habits as well as his willingness to sacrifice anything he had for whisky when once he commenced to drink.

On the 6th of January, 1907, John S. Matthis a brother of appellant and an uncle of appellee, died intestate in Hodgensville, Ky leaving surviving him as his only heirs five brothers and sisters, including the appellant. One of the sisters was Mrs. O'Brien, the mother of appellee, with whom he made his home and at whose house he died. A short while before his death he conveyed to Mrs. O'Brien property in Hodgensville worth $5,000 or $6,000, and she qualified as administratrix of his estate, that amounted, excluding the property conveyed to her, to $7,133.33. After deducting the debts and expenses of administration, the sum left for distribution among the heirs, excluding the property conveyed to Mrs. O'Brien, was $5,900, or $1,180 each. After his death, and when appellee bought the interest of appellant, the other heirs talked of bringing a suit against Mrs. O'Brien to set aside the conveyances to her upon the ground that at the time they were made John S. Matthis was incapable of contracting. On January 21, 1907, the appellant, whose home was in Elizabethtown, telephoned to appellee, who lived in Hodgensville, to come to Elizabethtown, as he wanted to see him. In response to this message, appellee on the day he received it went to Elizabethtown. When he arrived there, he met the appellant, who was then under the influence of liquor, as appellee knew, and he also knew that after his arrival appellant took several other drinks. The evidence that appellant was drinking heavily on this day is shown by the testimony of many witnesses. Some of these witnesses knew that appellant had an interest in his brother's estate, and, being apprehensive that in his condition he would dispose of it, they advised him that day not to do so, and endeavored to persuade him to place his money in the hands of a trust company for safe-keeping, which he promised to do.

Appellee testifies that appellant told him that he needed some money to buy a tract of land and had to have it at once; if he did not, he could not get it; and that he wanted to sell him his interest in John S. Matthis' estate. That he (appellee) advised him not to do that, but appellant said he was going to sell it, and if he did not buy it some one else would. That he "advised him several times to keep it and not to sell it. I then afterwards asked him what he wanted for it and he said $500. I told him that he had better not do it, that he might get more than that. He said that was all he wanted. The balance he said he wanted my mother and me to have. That he had always lived without it and could do it yet. I told him to study over it and be sure he was right, and in a little while he approached me again and asked me what I was going to do about it, that I must tell him, and I told him I couldn't give him an answer then, that I would go on home and he could come over and see about it. He says, 'No, I'll just go home with you.' I told him, 'No, you study about this thoroughly before you come.' He says: 'I have got my mind made up, and I am going to sell, as this place I want must be bought within a certain length of time.' He then asked me who would be a good lawyer in case we traded, and, as Mr. Mather was there that afternoon, I said to him, 'there is as good a man as you can get."' Appellant, in company with appellee, who paid his railroad fare, went to Hodgensville that night, where he put up at a hotel, and the proprietor testifies that when he came there he was drinking, but appeared to be sober the next morning. Appellant's version of what took place in Elizabethtown is that the appellee said he would give him $500 for his interest, and that would be more than any of them would get. That appellee paid his way to Hodgensville, also paid his board...