Moran v. Moran

• Decision Date: 02 July 1895
• Citation: 63 N.W. 989,106 Mich. 8
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: MORAN v. MORAN ET AL.

63 N.W. 989

106 Mich. 8

MORAN v. MORAN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 2, 1895

Error to circuit court, Wayne county; Joseph W. Donovan, Judge.

Ejectment by William G. Moran, by John H. Thomas, his general guardian against William B. Moran and another. There was a judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

James H. Pound, for appellant.

Edwin F. Conely and Orla B. Taylor, for appellees.

LONG J.

This is an action of ejectment commenced for the purpose of recovering possession of certain lands, and of setting aside a deed given by plaintiff to defendant William B. Moran's grantor, on the ground that plaintiff was incompetent to execute the deed at the time it was given. On the trial in the court below, counsel for plaintiff offered to show that, "from 1874 up to the year 1886, the plaintiff was a totally incompetent person mentally on the subject of property and property dealings; that in 1874 he was possessed in fee simple of the land described in the declaration, and that he never in any lucid interval executed any conveyance or divested himself of that title; that he was adjudged formally an incompetent person in the year 1885, and subsequent to the making of the deeds from plaintiff to George Hendrie, and from Hendrie to defendant, said Hendrie acting for defendant; that plaintiff intends to offer evidence tending to show to this jury that, at the time of the making of this deed to George Hendrie (April 5, 1882), he was such an incompetent person, and that the present defendant was well aware of these facts; that we are unable to tell what money plaintiff received, if any, with the exception of what has been already testified to by plaintiff's daughter, and that the defendant William Chauvin was simply the tenant in possession of Mr. Moran defendant, and is made a defendant because the statute requires it; that, so far as the facts and merits on which plaintiff's case is based, we rest upon the fact that plaintiff, Moran, was incompetent to convey property at the time it is claimed that the deed was made by him to George Hendrie, through whom the defendant William B. Moran claims title; that the deed so given was and is an absolute nullity." After this offer of evidence was made, the court directed verdict in favor of defendant, on the ground that the proceedings to set aside this deed should be in equity, and not in an action at law.

The facts, so far as developed on the trial, are that on December 13, 1872, the plaintiff and defendant Moran purchased private claim 696 for $6,000; that title was taken in the name of defendant. A division was thereafter made of the tract plaintiff taking the east half. He at once went into possession with his family, and remained there until about April 5, 1882, when he sold to George Hendrie, and three days later Hendrie sold to defendant Moran. The consideration named in the deed from plaintiff to Hendrie was $7,500. Upon the trial, plaintiff's counsel stated that he had no evidence upon the question as to whether this consideration was paid, except the cross-examination of defendant. The place was mortgaged for about $4,500. The testimony of plaintiff's daughter shows that plaintiff's wife applied for divorce from him in the latter part of the year 1881. The sale of the farm was made about the time the divorce proceedings were concluded, and Mrs. Moran got about $900; and it is claimed that plaintiff must have realized something from the sale, as he traveled most of the time after that for the next two or three years. The plaintiff returned to Grosse Pointe, and remained until November 9, 1887, when a guardian was appointed over him as an incompetent, and he was sent to the Retreat at Dearborn.

The only question raised is whether the remedy of plaintiff is in equity. It is not disputed but that the deed was given as claimed, and imports the consideration named; and it also appears that the $4,500 mortgage was paid off, and Mrs. Moran had $900 of the purchase money; and counsel insists that it is apparent that the plaintiff had quite a considerable sum of money from the sale. The sole reason for avoiding the deed is that, at the time it was given, the plaintiff was incompetent to make it. No guardian had been appointed over him at that time, and none was appointed until in 1887. As a record title the deed of defendant is perfect; but plaintiff's counsel insists that, while a court of equity might set aside the deed, yet the question is one which is triable in a court of law, before a jury as well. We cannot agree with this contention. The record shows conclusively that no adjudication had been had upon the incompetency of the plaintiff until after the deed was executed. The deed was not therefore absolutely void, but voidable. Wait v. Maxwell, 5 Pick. 217; Ingraham v. Baldwin, 9 N. Y. 45; Carrier v. Sears, 4 Allen, 336; Hallett v. Oakes, 1 Cush. 296; Chew v. Bank, 14 Md. 299; To view preceding link please click here Hovey v. Hobson, 53 Me. 453; Breckenridge v. Ormsby, 1 J. J. Marsh, 236; Nichol v. Thomas, 53 Ind. 42; Eaton v Eaton, 37 N. J. Law, 108. There is not an unanimity of opinion whether the deed is merely voidable on the question of the necessity of restoring the purchase money, and placing the grantee in the same position that he occupied before the execution of the deed, in cases where the grantee acted without notice of the grantor's insanity and in good faith. In this state, however, the question is settled that an incompetent person,...