Sutcliffe v. Heatley

• Decision Date: 01 March 1919
• Citation: 122 N.E. 317,232 Mass. 231
• Parties: SUTCLIFFE v. HEATLEY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

232 Mass. 231

122 N.E. 317

SUTCLIFFE

v.HEATLEY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Bristol.

March 1, 1919.

Case Reserved from Superior Court, Bristol County; Patrick M. Keating, Judge.

Suit by Mary E. Sutcliffe, per conservator, against David Heatley.On reservation and report for determination by the Supreme Judicial Court.Decree for plaintiff.

Jennings & Brayton, of Fall River, for petitioner.

Borden, Kenyon & Hawes, of Fall River, for respondent.

RUGG, C. J.

This is a suit by the conservator of Mary E. Sutcliffe to set aside a note and mortgage signed by her on the ground that she had not sufficient mental capacity to execute the instruments.The case was sent to a master, upon whose report and the bill and answer the case was reserved for our consideration.After narrating the circumstances under which the papers were signed the master found that the plaintiff‘had been subject to epileptic fits for about 10 years and her mind had become permanently impaired and she did not have sufficient mental strength to care properly for her property and to understand the effect of the mortgage and note, and did not understand the effect.’She derived no benefit from signing the mortgage and note, the entire proceeds thereof going directly to her brother, through whose undue influence she was induced to sign them.She had sufficient capacity to understand that she was signing a mortgage and note and did so understand, but was not of sufficient capacity to realize the effect it might have on her estate and to judge of the wisdom or unwisdom of the transaction, and did not understand it.

[2][3] The test in cases of this kind is whether the person executing the instrument had sufficient mental capacity to be capable of transacting the business.If she...