Stigers v. Brent

• Decision Date: 24 January 1879
• Citation: 50 Md. 214
• Parties: AMOS C. STIGERS et al. v. GEORGE BRENT, et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

50 Md. 214

AMOS C. STIGERS et al. v. GEORGE BRENT, et al.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

January 24, 1879

A lunatic can be sued at law for a debt which he contracted when of sound mind, and judgment therefor obtained against him. Lunacy is no sufficient ground, in equity, for declaring such a judgment a nullity.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County, in Equity.

This was a proceeding in equity by the appellants, as creditors of one John J. Brosius, to obtain a decree to set aside and have declared null and void, a judgment by confession in favor of George Brent, the appellee, on the ground that Brosius was of unsound mind when the suit was brought; that the summons issued in the action was not served on him; that afterwards Brent procured from Brosius a power of attorney authorizing the appearance of attorneys to the suit; and that Brent committed a fraud in law against the appellants and other creditors of Brosius, in procuring the power of attorney and obtaining the judgment. Brosius and the duly appointed committee of his estate were made co-defendants with Brent.

The court below (Pearre, J.,) passed a decree dismissing the bill, from which the complainants appealed. The case is further stated in the opinion of the court.

The cause was argued before BARTOL, C.J., BOWIE, BRENT, MILLER and ALVEY, JJ.

George W. Smith, Jr., for the appellants.

Brent seeks to recover the full amount of his claim against Brosius, by reason of his judgment, which the complainants allege was not legally obtained, and they urge, as the judgment is not a valid one, Brent is entitled to no priority under it, and must take with the rest of the creditors, a pro rata distribution on his claim, and they maintain that the judgment is not valid, because Brosius was a lunatic at and before the time suit was brought by Brent and at the time the power of attorney, to confess the judgment, was signed, and has remained so ever since. The proof fully establishes the lunacy--the defendant, Brent, did not even attempt to prove the contrary.

It is well established law in Maryland, that the acts of lunatics and infants are analogous. Key v. Davis, 1 Md. 43; Chew v. Bank, 14 Md. 319.

The powers of attorney of infants to confess judgments, are not voidable, but absolutely void and such judgments are set aside. Saunders v. Marr, 1 H. Bl. 75; Bennett v Davis, 6 Cow. 393.

But it has been definitely decided that the power of attorney of a lunatic is absolutely void. Dexter v. Hall, 15 Wall 26.

The deed of a lunatic is absolutely void. Van Deusen v. Sweet, 51 N.Y. 381. And so with a mortgage executed by a lunatic. Jacobs v. Richards, 5 DeG., M. & G. 55, and 18 Beav. 300, where the case is fully reported.

The same doctrine is maintained in the well considered case of Eckstein, 1 Parsons' Select Eq. Cas. 59.

Applying to this case the law, as laid down in the authorities cited, is the judgment obtained by Brent against the lunatic, Brosius, a valid judgment?

It may be argued that the solemn act of the court makes a judgment binding alike on sane and insane; but is this so? A lunatic has nothing that the law recognizes as a mind; he has lost that which distinguishes and elevates man above the rest of the animal creation. The rendition of a judgment against such a creature, ought to have no more effect than the rendition of a judgment against a dead man. A lunatic is civilly dead. 5 Bush, 686; Eckstein's Case, supra.

But independent of Brosius' lunacy, this judgment is not valid, because Brosius was not summoned to appear to the case in which the judgment was rendered.

Edward Stake, for the appellees.

There is no irregularity in this judgment. At the time the notes were given, the maker thereof, John J. Brosius, was of sound mind, and received full consideration for them. The insanity of Brosius did not commence until a year after the notes were given.

At the time the suit was instituted and judgment rendered, neither the lunatic nor his estate was under the control of the court.

It is manifest from all the authorities, that a lunatic may be sued at law. Tomlinson v. Devore, 1 Gill, 345; Portsmouth v. Bagester, 7 Dowl. & R. 614; Moulten v. Camroux, H. H. & G. 502; Freeman on Judgments, 123; Johnson v. Pomeroy, 31 Ohio, 247.

Even a commission of lunacy does not protect the lunatic from an action. 2 Maddox Ch. 750; Shelford on Lunacy, 429; 3 Robinson's Pr. 240; 7 Ib. 59; Sanford v. Sanford, 62 N.Y. 553.

All the above cases were suits on contracts, made with persons non compos mentis, when they were in that condition. Where a party was sane when the contract was made, evidence of previous or subsequent insanity is immaterial. 2 Saunders' Pl. & Ev. 650; 1 Dowl. 117; 1 Addison on Contracts, 192; 1 Chitty on Contracts, 189.

The suit was properly brought and defended. Where one is non compos mentis, he shall defend by guardian, if within age, or by attorney, if of full age. 2 Saunders' Pl. & Ev. 650; 1 Chitty Pl. 551; 1 Tidd's Pr. 92; 5 Bacon's Abr. Title, Idiots, 41; Shelford on Lunacy, 396.

A lunatic retains all his civil rights in his own person, until found by inquisition to be of unsound mind. Bullen & Leake's Precedents, 6; 2 Chitty Pr. part 4, chs. 10, 11, 13; Gleddon v. Treble, 9 C. B. N. S. 367; Rock v. Stake, 7 Dowl. 22.

The defendant, Brosius, having been regularly returned summoned, and his appearance to the action by attorneys proper, no inference can be made of fraud or collusion against him. The sheriff's return imports verity, and there is no evidence in the cause to contradict it. Watson on Sheriffs, 72.

The bill of the complainants does not even allege that there was any fraudulent concert or combination between the plaintiff, Brent, and the sheriff, or the attorneys in the cause; or that, by reason of the rendition of the judgment, Brosius has been rendered liable for the payment of a debt, which ex quo et bono he is not bound to pay; or that he was deprived of an opportunity of making a meritorious defense to the action, which he would have made if apprised of its pendency; or that if the judgment were now open, he has any such defense to make. Fowler v. Lee, 10 G. & J. 362.

The complainants are not entitled to any relief at the hands of a court of equity. They had knowledge of the mental unsoundness of Mr. Brosius from the time it commenced, nearly two years before Brent instituted his action, and were creditors at that time. None of them reduced their claims to judgments, or instituted any proceedings to subject the estate of the lunatic to the control of the court.

Mr. Brent instituted his action to the next term of court succeeding the date his notes became due, and his priority is the result of diligence, and without fraud or imposition upon either the debtor or his other creditors. Kearney v. Sascer, 37 Md. 264; Wood v. Patterson, 4 Md. Ch. 335; Little v. Price, 1 Md. Ch. 182; 2 Story's Eq. sec. 1753.

If the complainants were entitled to any relief from this judgment, they had ample remedy at law. The judgment of a court is subject to its control during the term, and could have been stricken out on motion. If they are parties interested, they are concluded by the judgment. Townsend v. Summers, 31 Md. 247; Andrews v. Devries, 26 Md. 223; Mailhouse v. Inloes, 18 Md. 328; McKenzie v. R. R. Co., 28 Md. 161.

The question of lunacy has nothing to do with the interference of the court in this case. If there be no fraud, or no undue advantage be taken, lunacy is not of itself an adequate ground to set aside a transaction. Kerr on Fraud, 146; 1 Story's Eq. secs. 199, 202, 236; 237; Shelford on Lunacy, 419, 429; Hull v. Warren, 9 Ves. 605; Fonblanque's Eq. 46; 5 Bacon's Abr. 21.

Brent J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The bill in this case is filed by the appellants, as creditors of a certain John J. Brosius, to set aside a judgment rendered against him in favor of the appellee, George Brent, on the 12th of February, 1877, by the Circuit Court for Washington County.

The cause of action was two promissory notes given by John J. Brosius to the appellee for money loaned, the one, dated July 1st, 1874, being for $2000, payable two years after date, and the other, dated November 1st, 1874, being for $1000, payable twenty months after date. Shortly after the maturity of both notes, suit was brought upon them to the November Term, 1876, of the Circuit Court for Washington County, and judgment obtained at the following term, which commenced in February, 1877

On the 23rd of the same month of February, and eleven days after the rendition of this judgment, Clarence Brosius filed a petition on the equity side of the court for a writ de lunatico inquirendo against the said John J. Brosius. The writ was issued, and an inquisition taken under it and returned on the 10th of March following, the jury finding that Brosius was then a lunatic, without lucid intervals, and had been so since the 1st of August, 1875.

A large amount of testimony has been taken in the case, and the soundness of Brosius' mind at the times he borrowed the two sums of money mentioned from the appellee and executed these notes, has not been questioned or doubted. The good faith and fairness of this transaction is conceded on all sides.

Nor can it be questioned that he afterwards became of unsound mind, and was so at the time the suit of the appellee was brought, and the judgment in question obtained. The proof establishes these facts very conclusively.

The bill does not charge any actual fraud, collusion or conspiracy, but alleges that the judgment was improperly obtained, and unless it is declared void by the court in the exercise of its equity powers, the appellee will have a preference in the distribution of the estate of...