McCartney v. McCartney

• Decision Date: 19 February 1900
• Parties: McCARTNEY v. McCARTNEY.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

55 S.W. 310

McCARTNEY v. McCARTNEY.

Supreme Court of Texas.

February 19, 1900.

Error to court of civil appeals of Third supreme judicial district.

Action by N. S. McCartney against S. J. McCartney. From the judgment of the court of civil appeals (53 S. W. 388), affirming a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Cox & Meek, Cunningham, Cunningham & McCollum, and Clark & Bolinger, for plaintiff in error. John S. Patterson, guardian ad litem, and Baker & Ross, for defendant in error.

WILLIAMS, J.

Plaintiff in error brought this suit against defendant in error, his wife, who was a lunatic confined in the asylum, to cancel a deed of date January 28, 1895, appearing of record, and purporting to have been executed by plaintiff to defendant, conveying to her certain lands. As the ground for the relief sought, plaintiff alleged that the deed had never been delivered by him, and was never intended to take effect, but was merely signed, acknowledged, and read to defendant when she was insane, and laboring under the delusion that she and her children were to be left destitute, in order to allay her fears and soothe her mind, and had been retained by plaintiff until it was taken from his possession by some other person, and placed upon record, without his knowledge or consent. The guardian ad litem, appointed to represent the interests of the defendant, by his pleadings traversed the allegations made by plaintiff, and asserted that the deed had been delivered and had taken effect. He also alleged that plaintiff had, on the 20th day of March, 1888, executed and delivered to defendant a deed, and caused it to be recorded on the 10th day of October, 1892, by which plaintiff intended to convey to defendant the land subsequently described in the deed of 1895, but that the description of the land in the first deed was defective, and the last was executed for the purpose of curing this defect. To this plaintiff replied that the deed of 1888 was void for want of description of the land conveyed, and, if not void, it was never delivered nor intended to take effect as a conveyance, but was simply signed and read to defendant for the same purpose as that of 1895,—of relieving her disturbed condition of mind; and that for the same purpose it was later placed upon record, with no intention of passing title, and was ever afterwards retained in plaintiff's possession. The trial was by jury, and, after the evidence was in, the court directed a verdict for defendant, which was returned, and judgment was entered accordingly. Upon appeal, the judgment was affirmed by the court of civil appeals, and the case is now before us on writ of error.

The decision rests upon the question whether or not the evidence was such as to warrant the trial judge in giving the peremptory instruction. As to some circumstances relied on by the parties, there was a conflict of evidence, but it is only necessary to consider the effect of the testimony which tended to support plaintiff's case, in connection with such facts as are admitted. It is conceded that on March 20, 1888, plaintiff wrote, signed, and read to defendant a deed which purported to convey to her "a one-half interest in the farm on which we now live, situated on the headwaters of Cow Bayou creek," and that on March 30, 1888, he acknowledged it, and on October 10, 1892, caused it to be recorded. But he testified that, before the deed was made, signs of insanity in his wife had appeared, and she was much disturbed by fears of destitution and poverty, and continually importuned him to make such a conveyance; that in order to quiet her fears, and arrest, if possible, the progress of the disease, he wrote and signed the deed, and read it to her, but with no intention of conveying the title, and that he never delivered it to her, but kept it in his possession; that her trouble was not subdued, but she continued in the disturbed mental state, and further insisted on his acknowledging and recording the deed, which, for the same purpose, he did, still keeping and never delivering it; and that the reason why he did not insert a better description of the land was that he had no purpose of conveying it. As to the circumstances indicating the condition of defendant's mind during this period, he was corroborated by his witnesses, and contradicted by those who testified for the defense. The evidence left it somewhat uncertain as to what was known and considered as the farm on which they lived. Plaintiff owned about 300 acres, composed of four adjacent tracts, on the headwaters of Cow Bayou, which were embraced in an inclosure of 1,000 acres,...