Titcomb v. Vantyle

• Decision Date: 31 January 1877
• Citation: 1877 WL 9392,84 Ill. 371
• Parties: HENRY TITCOMBv.JONATHAN VANTYLE, Sen.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

84 Ill. 371

1877 WL 9392 (Ill.)

HENRY TITCOMB

v.JONATHAN VANTYLE, Sen.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1877.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Montgomery county; the Hon. JAMES C. ALLEN, Judge, presiding.

Mr. EDWARD LANE, for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. A. N. KINGSBURY, for the defendant in error.

Mr. JUSTICE CRAIG delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a bill in equity, to enjoin the prosecution of an action of ejectment, and to set aside a sale of the land under which the plaintiff in the action claimed title, made by the sheriff upon an execution issued on a judgment rendered at the May term, 1860, of the circuit court of Montgomery county, in favor of one Charles Rhoads, and against Jonathan Vantyle, Sen., on the ground that Vantyle was, at the time of the rendition of the judgment and sale of the premises, insane. A feigned issue out of chancery was formed, as to the sanity of the defendant in the judgment, and submitted to a jury, and they, by their verdict, found Vantyle insane at the time of the rendition of the judgment and sale of the land, and, upon the finding of the jury, the court rendered a decree as prayed for in the bill. Several errors have been assigned, but, in the view we take of the case, we deem it only necessary to consider whether the evidence bearing upon the question of insanity, is sufficient to sustain the decree of the court. In the consideration of this question, no special importance is to be given to the finding of the jury, as often is, and properly so, in the trial of an action at law. The verdict of a jury on a trial of a feigned issue out of chancery, is merely advisory to the chancellor, which he may regard or disregard, and enter a decree contrary to the finding, as, in his judgment, he may be of opinion the weight of the evidence may justify. Williams v. Bishop, 15 Ill. 553. On the 8th day of July, 1861, upon proper complaint made, a trial was had in the county court of Montgomery county, before a jury, and the said Vantyle was, by the verdict, found to be insane, and the verdict specified that he had been in that condition about two months. Prior to this finding, the legal presumption obtained that Vantyle was sane. The legal presumption is, that all persons of mature age are of sane memory. This presumption continues until inquest found; then, perhaps, the presumption may be regarded as reversed, until it is rebutted by evidence that sanity has returned. Lilly v. Waggoner, 27 Ill. 395.

The judgment which is attempted to be impeached by the bill having been rendered in May, 1860, and the sale having been made soon thereafter, it devolved upon complainant to establish insanity at that time by a clear preponderance of the evidence.

The complainant relied upon the testimony of five witnesses to establish insanity at the time the judgment was rendered. The first one, J. P. Herman, testified that Vantyle was insane, but he noticed no symptoms of insanity until May or June, 1861. John Adams, the next witness, says he saw nothing more until the spring of 1861. Two sons, James and Jonathan Vantyle, testify to strange conduct as early as 1858 and 1859; and, in their opinion, insanity existed at that time. Dr. A. S. Haskel, a physician, treated Vantyle as early as 1859 and 1860, and gives it as his opinion that he was then insane. This, in connection with the verdict of the jury rendered in 1861, was the substance of the evidence introduced in behalf of complainant.

To overcome this proof, the defendant called eight witnesses, who resided near...