Meadows v. Thomas

• Decision Date: 28 February 1918
• Docket Number: No. 23285.,23285.
• Citation: 187 Ind. 216,118 N.E. 811
• Parties: MEADOWS v. THOMAS.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

187 Ind. 216

118 N.E. 811

MEADOWS

v.THOMAS.

No. 23285.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Feb. 28, 1918.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Morgan County; Nathan Whitaker, Judge.

Action by Eva F. Thomas against Hattie M. Meadows. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals from an order overruling her motion for new trial. Transferred from Appellate Court under section 1405, Burns' Ann. St. 1914. Affirmed.Carson, Lehman & Faust, of Indianapolis, and Bain & Branch, of Martinsville, for appellant. Silas C. Kivett, of Martinsville, and Earl S. Elliott and James M. Ogden, both of Indianapolis, for appellee.

LAIRY, J.

This was an action by appellee, Eva F. Thomas, to set aside, on the grounds of unsoundness of mind and undue influence, a deed of conveyance made by her father, John Gardner, during his lifetime, to appellant, Hattie M. Meadows on January 18, 1913. There was also a paragraph of complaint seeking to quiet title to the property conveyed by Gardner's deed. Appellant filed affirmative paragraphs of answer and also a cross-complaint asking that her title be quieted. The issues were closed by general denials of these pleadings, and trial was had by court and jury. The jury found for appellee that she is the owner of the real estate in controversy, and the court, being advised, found for appellee upon her first and second paragraphs of complaint, which were to set aside the deed, and rendered judgment upon the verdict of the jury and finding of the court decreeing that appellee was the owner of the property, and that the deed of conveyance be set aside as invalid. The action of the trial court in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial is the only error assigned on appeal.

Several of the questions presented under the motion for a new trial may be considered together. After a careful reading and consideration of the evidence, the court is convinced that the evidence on the issues of unsoundness of mind and undue influence is sufficient to sustain the finding of the court on the first and second paragraphs of complaint as well as the verdict of the jury on the third paragraph of complaint. That being true, the court did not err in refusing to direct a verdict for appellant or in overruling appellant's motion to withdraw the issue of undue influence from the consideration of the jury.

[1] The court committed no error in striking out a part of the deposition of Arthur J. Jones taken on behalf of appellee. On his examination in chief the witness gave no testimony bearing on the mental condition of the grantor, John Gardner, at the time of the execution of the deed under which appellant claimed title. On cross-examination the witness was asked his opinion as to whether such grantor was a person of sound or unsound mind at the date of the conveyance. Such evidence could not be properly elicited in cross-examination; and, as it was not otherwise presented, the court did not err in striking it out. Patton v. Hamilton (1859) 12 Ind. 256;Stewart v. Stewart (1911) 175 Ind. 412, 94 N. E. 564.

[2][3][4] Appellee asserted title to the real estate in controversy as the daughter and heir at law of John Gardner. For the purpose of showing that her...