Thorn v. Thorn

• Decision Date: 22 June 1883
• Citation: 16 N.W. 324,51 Mich. 167
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: THORN v. THORN.

16 N.W. 324

51 Mich. 167

THORN v. THORN.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 22, 1883

Where a son, who has the entire control and management of the property of his father, obtains an absolute conveyance for a nominal consideration of such property from the father, who is old and feeble, although not actually imbecile, such conveyance cannot be sustained, unless clear and satisfactory evidence is adduced to show the fairness of the son's dealings with the father.

Upon examination of the evidence in this case the deed from the father to the son cannot be sustained, and a decree to rescind should be passed.

Appeal from Jackson.

O.E Augstman, for defendant.

CAMPBELL, J.

Complainant brought this suit in equity to obtain the rescission of a deed made by him to defendant of a farm in Monroe county which was worth not far from $5,000, and which was his chief estate. The deed was made in 1875, when complainant was about 80 years old, defendant being one of his sons, with whom he had then lived since 1872. The deed is claimed to have been obtained by fraud and undue influence. The circuit court of Jackson county, into which the case was removed because the judge of Monroe had been of counsel, dismissed the bill, and complainant appeals. The testimony is prolix, and it would not be useful to enlarge upon the facts. In our opinion, the transaction, as it stands, viewed in the light of circumstances, is not open to any serious doubt as to its true character. In 1872, complainant, who had been living with his son Enoch, in Washtenaw county, went down to visit his son Gardner, the defendant, and remained with him for several years. At this time he had no other children living but had some grandchildren. He owned the farm in question which was under a lease for three years, from March 1, 1872 to William Thorn and William H. Collar, on a rent of $150 a year, in addition to all taxes and assessments, ordinary and extraordinary. The lessees under this lease had an option of purchase at $5,000. Complainant had, also, some personal property, and a sum of money not ascertained in amount.

Not a great while after going to live with defendant, complainant gave him a general power of attorney, not only to lease, but also to sell, his real estate, and to collect rents. He also seems to have executed several different wills. He is shown to have been in some way induced to believe that his son Enoch had defrauded him of $1,800, and that he was only safe under defendant's watchfulness. This idea about Enoch was absolutely unfounded. It was such a delusion as either indicated mental unsoundness--which we do not think existed--or such a working upon his suspicions as completely led him astray. The facts seem to be that, while at this period he was not insane, he was affected by a disorder which rendered him weak in mind and body, and particularly liable to be handled by designing persons. Between the arrival at defendant's and the execution of the deed in 1875, complainant gave defendant a voluntary note for $1,000, and signed with him a note to one Stone for $500, which defendant claims was borrowed for complainant, but which we are satisfied was for defendant's own benefit. During this same period, also, there were opportunities for selling the farm for $4,500, which were not accepted by defendant. On the twenty-third of February, 1875, complainant made the warranty deed now in suit to defendant for an expressed consideration of $4,000, and defendant claims that it was an actual sale and not a gift. Complainant claims he did not understand that he was making such a transfer to d...