Sands v. Sands

• Decision Date: 22 January 1885
• Citation: 112 Ill. 225,1885 WL 8145
• Parties: CANDACE SANDSv.MARCUS SANDS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

112 Ill. 225

1885 WL 8145 (Ill.)

CANDACE SANDS

v.MARCUS SANDS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed at Ottawa Jan. 22, 1885.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Whiteside county; the Hon. JOHN V. EUSTACE, Judge, presiding.

This was a bill in equity, in the Whiteside circuit court, by Marcus Sands, against Candace Sands, praying that she be decreed to reëxecute a deed for a certain forty-acre tract of land, and for general relief.

The material allegations in the bill are, that on the third day of June, 1881, the defendant, for a good and valuable consideration, deeded a forty-acre tract of land, which is particularly described, to the complainant; that he took possession of the land under the deed, and made valuable and permanent improvements thereon; that she afterwards, without his knowledge or consent, got possession of the deed before it was recorded, and destroyed it, and that she has refused to execute another deed, although requested so to do.

The defendant answered, denying the delivery of the deed as alleged. She admits the execution of the deed, but alleges that she was at the time dangerously sick, and her mental faculties and will power affected and impaired by sickness; that complainant, who is her son, by fraud and undue influence induced her to sign the deed; that he induced her to believe, and she did believe, that such deed would not be treated as delivered and valid if she got well, but would remain under her power and control, just like a will, subject to revocation or alteration, if she should so elect. She also sets up and claims a homestead in the tract.

Replication was filed to the answer, and the defendant then filed her cross-bill. The cross-bill alleges, as does the answer, the age, sickness, and consequent weakness of will and intellect of the defendant at the time of the execution of the deed; that complainant, who is her son, induced her, by false and fraudulent representations, to sign it; that her husband, who was then alive, and living with her, did not join in its execution, and knew nothing in regard to it; that she was induced by the complainant, and the notary public acting under the complainant, to believe, and did believe, that if she recovered from her sickness the deed would be invalid as a conveyance, and of no more effect than a will; that she never delivered it intending that it should take effect as a deed, but simply handed it to the complainant to be placed among her other papers, where she could control it. She also sets up and claims estate of homestead in the property. She alleges that complainant is in possession, and refuses to account for rents and profits, prays that the deed be set aside and removed as a cloud upon her title, and that an account may be taken of rents and profits, and complainant decreed to pay the amount so to be found due. Answer was filed putting in issue these allegations, to which there was a replication.

Evidence was given on behalf of complainant and defendant, on the issues thus presented, and the court, on final hearing, decreed that defendant, within thirty days, make, execute and deliver to the complainant a good and sufficient deed for said land, conveying to him all right, title and interest which the defendant had in the land on June 3, 1881, “excepting such rights as the defendant may then have had in said land under the laws of the State of Illinois, entitled ‘Exemptions and Homesteads.’ ”

The errors assigned properly bring before the court the questions discussed in the opinion.

Messrs. BENNETT & GREEN, for the appellant.

Messrs. C. J. & C. C. JOHNSON, for the appellee.

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE SCHOLFIELD delivered the opinion of the Court:

John P. Sands, and Candace, his wife, lived on a farm of one hundred and twenty-six acres, in Whiteside county, the title whereof was in him, from some time in the year 1847, and raised thereon a family of eight children, of whom five survived their father. The farm was opened and improved and cultivated, as we infer from the evidence, by the joint labor of all, each contributing, as is usual in such cases, to the extent of his or her ability, in his or her own way. As the children, respectively, attained their majority, they left home, and thereafter conducted business for themselves. Before the year 1873 they had all left home, the father and mother remaining alone upon the farm. Marcus, the youngest child, had learned the carpenter's trade, and after having had employment at different places, late in the year 1873 was induced by his father and mother to return and live with them on the farm, and work it for a share in the products. In 1874 he was married, and then removed into and dwelt in a house some fifteen rods distant from that occupied by his father and mother, but on the same forty-acre tract of land, and thenceforth he continued to work the farm, as before, for a share in the products. Early in the year 1881, John P. Sands conveyed, through Marcus, to Candace, the forty acres whereon were the houses occupied as dwellings, and which is the tract affected by this controversy. Candace made her will, whether before or after she received this title is not very clear from the evidence, intending thereby to devise this tract to Lelia, the wife of Marcus. About the middle of May, 1881, Candace became sick, and remained sick until in July following. While she was thus sick (on the 3d day of June,) she executed the deed, reëxecution of which is now sought to be coerced, and some time afterwards, probably during the same summer, she destroyed this deed. John P. Sands devised the remaining eighty-six acres of the farm to Marcus, by his last will, and died on the 11th day of June, 1883. Marcus has paid no rent, and rendered no account to Candace, at any time. Prior to the death of John P., Marcus accounted to him, and paid rent for the entire farm. Thus far there is no substantial dispute as to the facts; nor is it disputed that when this deed was executed, Candace owned no other property, that no one was present at the execution of the deed save Marcus and the notary taking the acknowledgment, and that no one else, save the wife of Marcus, had knowledge thereof, although, at the time, John P., and an aunt of Marcus, and a servant girl, were all in an adjoining room.

The deed was executed at the instance of Marcus. His wife, at his instigation, informed Candace that the will was not satisfactory. They were afraid...