Paulus v. Reed

• Decision Date: 12 October 1903
• Citation: 96 N.W. 757,121 Iowa 224
• Parties: A. R. PAULUS, Guardian, Etc., Appellee, v. WILLIAM REED, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

96 N.W. 757

121 Iowa 224

A. R. PAULUS, Guardian, Etc., Appellee, v. WILLIAM REED, Appellant

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

October 12, 1903

Appeal from Montgomery District Court.--HON. N.W. MACY, Judge.

ACTION in equity by plaintiff, as guardian of Tunis Van Horn, a person of unsound mind, praying that his said ward be decreed to be the owner in fee simple of certain real estate, that the defendant be decreed to have no right or title thereto and that title be quieted in said Tunis Van Horn. There was a decree in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

E. C Gibbs and R. W. Beeson for appellant.

J. M Junkin and Ralph Pringle for appellee.

OPINION

BISHOP, C. J.

At the time of the trial Tunis Van Horn was about forty-two years of age. Some years ago the father of said Tunis conveyed to him a farm consisting of one hundred and sixty acres. This was done, as testified to by the mother of Tunis (the father now being dead), that he might have something for his support, to take care of himself. There was no other consideration. A short time thereafter, and about ten years ago, Tunis married Sarah Reed, a daughter of the defendant, then a young woman of about twenty-four years of age. They went to live together upon the farm. During the period of their residence there a deed of the farm was executed by Tunis to his wife. In 1899 this farm was sold, both wife and husband joining in the deed, and there was realized from the sale thereof the sum of $ 4,000 in cash. Some $ 3,000 of said sum was then invested in the land in controversy, the title being taken in the name of the wife. In 1900 said Sarah Van Horn died, intestate, and without issue. She left surviving her the said Tunis, her husband, and the defendant, her father, as her only heirs at law. The defendant makes claim to be the owner of an undivided one-half the real estate in controversy, and this action is brought to cut off and bar any such right or equity therein. The action is based upon the allegation that at all the times in question the said Tunis was of feeble and unsound mind, and wholly incapable of transacting business and executing papers, and incapable of understanding or comprehending the force or effect of his acts and transactions; that this was known to his said wife; and that she paid no consideration, valuable in character, for the property conveyed to her. The answer of the defendant presents no issue of fact save as to the alleged mental condition of said Tunis.

That there was no consideration, valuable in character, passed between Tunis and his wife, is of itself immaterial. It is elementary that the consideration of love and affection will support a deed made by a husband to his wife, there being no rights of third persons intervening. Mercer v. Mercer, 29 Iowa 557.

So, too, the law presumes every man to be sane, and to understand the nature and effect of his acts and transactions. The burden was upon the plaintiff, therefore, to establish the fact of unsoundness of mind existing at the time the deed of the farm was made to the wife, and, failing in this, the defendant is entitled, as under the statute provided, to an interest in the real estate of which his daughter died seised. It is to be observed that fraud or undue influence is not alleged in terms; the averment made is simply that the deed was made. Now, mere weakness of mind alone, without fraud or undue influence, is not sufficient to invalidate a conveyance, and this has been repeatedly held. Campbell v. Campbell, 51 Iowa 713, 2 N.W. 541; Burgess v. Pollock, 53 Iowa 273, 5 N.W. 179; Elwood v. O' Brien, 105 Iowa 239, 74 N.W. 740.

On the other hand, no one will contend that the contract of a person of unsound mind, amounting in a practical sense to imbecility, should be upheld. But it is not necessary, in order to defeat a contract, that weakness of mind amounting to positive idiocy or insanity be shown. If it appears that there is a mental deficiency so marked as that the conclusion is justified that the party has not exercised any deliberate judgment concerning the transaction in question, but, on the contrary, has been simply as putty in the hands of a stronger will, then it cannot be said that a contract has been executed. A vital element is lacking, in that there cannot then be said to have been any meeting of minds. Out of such a transaction there is presented the product of but one mind. Now, we take it that in the case of a conveyance by a husband to his wife, or from the wife to the husband, the grantor being weak of mind, and a controversy thereafter arises between them or those representing them, the courts will scan the transaction very closely to discover the animus with which the contract was brought about. And if it shall appear that the rights and interests of the grantor are intended to be and are being fairly subserved, the court may go further in upholding the conveyance than would be warranted in a...