Stumph v. Miller
| Decision Date | 05 November 1895 |
| Docket Number | 17,463 |
| Citation | 41 N.E. 812,142 Ind. 442 |
| Parties | Stumph et al. v. Miller |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Marion Superior Court.
The judgment is affirmed.
J. E Franklin and G. W. Woods, for appellants.
J. M Bailey, for appellee.
The appellee alleges in her complaint that the appellant Carrie V. Stumph is her daughter, and the appellant Henry Stumph her son-in-law; that at the times of the transactions herein complained of, the appellee was extremely aged, being nearly eighty years old; that she is very illiterate, and for the three years previous to the filing of her complaint, covering also the time of the acts herein alleged, she was sick and afflicted, causing mental and physical weakness, which greatly enfeebled her will power and weakened her judgment, and rendered her incapable of transacting business; that, by reason of her enfeebled mind, and of her age and sickness, she was incapable of exercising her own judgment, and could easily be persuaded by the use of improper influences, and promises, and threats, to do things greatly to her disadvantage; that the appellants, well knowing the said condition of appellee, and knowing the influence which they had over her, by reason of their said relationship to her, did, for the purpose of cheating and defrauding her out of the real estate here in controversy, unduly influence, intimidate, threaten, coerce, and make false promises to her, by all of which they procured her to make a deed for said real estate to the appellant Carrie V. Stumph; that no consideration whatever was given for said deed, but a consideration of $ 1,000.00 was inserted in the deed, whereas the real estate is of the value of $ 2,000.00.
In a second paragraph of complaint appellee sets out the same facts as in the first paragraph, and states, in addition, that up to June, 1892, she was living on her said lot in the city of Indianapolis with another daughter and her husband, Charles Rose, under a contract with said Rose, when, by the persuasion of the appellants, she was induced to leave her place and go to live with appellants; that a short time after she went to live with them, appellants began their importunities, threats and solicitations, to induce her to deed to them her property, threatening to drive her from their home, if she did not do so; that the appellant Carrie V. Stumph at times, would come to the appellee in tears, and seemingly in great anguish, and plead and beg and persuade her to deed the property; that, so persuaded, threatened and coerced, she did, in August, 1892, make the deed without consideration; that after the deed was so made, the appellants treated appellee in a cruel and inhuman manner, confined her in a room, refused her sufficient food and water, when she pleaded in tears for the same, compelled her to remain undressed day and night, and took her dress out of her room, so that she could not leave the house; that, after bearing this treatment as long as she could, she stole out of the house in her night clothes, at eleven o'clock in the night, and walked for hours upon the streets, until some person, unknown to her, returned her to the home of her other son-in-law, Charles Rose. Other acts of cruelty, fraud, and deception in the procurement of the deed are alleged, and the court is asked to set aside the deed and appoint a commissioner to re-convey the property to appellee.
There was an answer in general denial, and the cause was submitted to the court. On hearing the evidence, there was a finding for the appellee.
The only assignment of error, discussed by counsel, is the overruling of a motion for a new trial.
The complaint alleges that the appellee's mental and physical health was greatly impaired for three years before the bringing of the suit, which was for over two years previous to the date of making the deed. As bearing on the question of her health, Dr. W. H. Haines, a witness for the appellee, was asked whether he saw her in the winter or spring of 1892. This was objected to, for the reason that enquiry as to appellee's mental condition should be confined to about the date of the deed, August 1, 1892.
We can see no impropriety in the question as put. It was alleged that her mental and physical condition, when the deed was made, was due to extreme age and to sickness. The sickness, as alleged, extended far back of the winter and spring of 1892, and it was pertinent to enquire into her condition throughout the period, during which her alleged debilitated condition was coming on, so that the court might better understand her condition at the time of the transaction complained of. Imbecility, due to age and ill health, is brought on by causes and conditions, which may extend back for some time previous to the actual weakness of mind, resulting from such causes.
In any event, the admission of the evidence was...
To continue reading
Request your trial