Travis v. Travis

• Decision Date: 11 March 1921
• Citation: 87 So. 762,81 Fla. 309
• Parties: TRAVIS et al. v. TRAVIS.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

87 So. 762

81 Fla. 309

TRAVIS et al. v. TRAVIS.

Florida Supreme Court

March 11, 1921

Suit by E. W. Travis and others against Sim Travis. Decree for defendant, and complainants appeal.

Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Mental weakness alone insufficient to authorize cancellation of deed. Mere mental weakness will not authorize a court of equity to set aside a deed if it does not amount to inability to comprehend the effect and nature of the transaction and is unaccompanied by evidence of imposition or undue influence.

Decree supported by conflicting evidence not reversed. Where there is conflict in the testimony, but there is evidence to support the finding of the chancellor, the decree will not be reversed unless it clearly appears to be erroneous.

Chancellor's finding will not be disturbed, where no clear preponderance in favor of either party. The finding of a chancellor on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed by an appellate court where the mind cannot repose with entire confidence and certainty on a conclusion in favor of either party.

Burden of proof of insanity rests on him who alleges it. Every person is presumed to be sane until the contrary appears, and in civil actions the burden of proof of insanity rests upon him who alleges it.

Grantor's insanity must be established by preponderance of evidence. It devloves upon him who seeks to avoid a deed on account of insanity of the grantor to establish the fact of insanity by a preponderance of the evidence.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; C. L Wilson, judge.

COUNSEL

James H. Finch and John M. Calhoun, both of Marianna, for appellants.

Paul Carter, of Marianna, for appellee.

OPINION

WEST J.

The object of this suit was to set aside a deed of conveyance to certain land threin described as a cloud upon the title and for partition of the land attempted to be conveyed thereby among the complainants and the defendant.

The complainants are heirs of the grantor, and the defendant is also an heir, being a son of the grantor and brother of those of the complainants who are described in the bill as her children.

The grounds of the alleged invalidity of the deed which it is sought by this suit to have declared ineffectual to convey any title to the property described therein to the defendant are stated in the bill as follows:

'Complainants show your honor that the said Mary Travis at the time of the making of said deed, and for a long time prior thereto and thereafter, was very old and feeble-minded and mentally an imbecile and unable to attend to the ordinary affairs of life by reason of her mental condition; she made said deed without any valuable consideration from the said defendant which conveyed her entire real property, which was worth about $600 or $700; that she had no other property than this; that said deed is void for the want of a valuable consideration, and void because the deceased. Mary Travis was not of a mental capacity sufficient to attend to the kind of business or to manage her business affairs; that the said Mary Travis at the time of the making of said deed was almost insane; in fact, they started to send her to the asylum, but by reason of the fact some of her relatives agreed to take charge of her and look after her personally, thus keeping her away from the asylum.'

By answer to the bill defendant denied that the grantor, the ancestor of complainants and defendant, was at the time of the execution of the deed mentally weak and incompetent to make a deed, denied that she was unduly influenced to do so by the defendant, and averred that the consideration paid by him for such deed was the support of the grantor by the defendant during her life, and that she was at the time of its execution in all respects competent to make the deed.

Testimony was taken, and upon a final hearing a decree was rendered by the chancellor adjudging the deed to be valid conveyance of the property to the defendant, that such property was therefore not subject to partition, and dismissing the bill. There was no specific finding upon the issue of fact presented, namely, the alleged incapacity of the grantor to make a valid deed.

There are several assignments of error, but the only question presented and argued is whether, in view of the evidence, the decree should have been for defendant; the contention being that the evidence was sufficient to establish the fact of the mental incompetency of the grantor to make a valid deed at the time of the execution of the conveyance.

This court has held that mere mental weakness will not authorize a court of equity to set aside a deed if it does not amount to inability to comprehend the effect and nature of the transaction and is not accompanied by evidence of imposition or undue influence. Clarke et al. v. Hartt et al., 56 Fla. 775, 47 So. 819; Waterman v. Higgins, 28 Fla. 660, 10 So. 97.

That the grantor in the deed under consideration was subject to what may have been insane delusions seems to be established by the evidence.

George Spooner, the first witness for complainants, who was a nearby neighbor, testified that she, the grantor, had several times told his wife that she was afraid that he, the witness, would kill her; 'that the echose had told her I was going to kill her.' He testified further that he would see her walking around her house at night with a light, and that he was 'afraid she would burn him out, kill herself, or something'; that he, with others of the community, because of their belief that she was mentally defective, and before the deed was made, initiated proceedings to have her adjudged insance and committed to the hospital for the insane at Chattahoochee, but that the proceedings were abandoned when a daughter and her husband asked to be permitted to take her and care for her in their home.

C. T. McDaniel, a witness for complainants who lived near the grantor during the latter years of her life, testified that in his opinion she was mentally unsound; and he also testified of the fear entertained and expressed by her that the witness George Spooner would kill her.

Tom Travis, one of the complainants, a son of the grantor, testified that----

'She was just like a child; just had to nurse her like a child. I have held her in my lap a many of a time and give her medicine, and often she would go around the house until she fell down if somebody didn't stop her. She would pick at the doors and pick at the clock, go to the well and get a drink of water and back and go around the well; it was just continually that way until somebody stopped her. She was scared of me, scared of my children, and I would prevail with her and tell her we would not hurt her, we were her own dear children, and sometimes she would recognize us and sometimes she wouldn't.'

Eli Banks, one of the complainants, the son-in-law into whose home the grantor was taken when the proceedings to have her adjudged insane were abandoned, in his testimony said:

'I carried her to my home, and night she would get up and try to get out of the house, and I had to lock the door to keep her from getting out, and one night she did get away and got down below a gentleman's house named ----- and would holler, 'Rayfield! Rayfield! what you setting that house on fire for?' I heard her about half a quarter from my house across the filed and found her and got her and said, 'Come on back home, what's the matter;' she said, 'Don't you see the fire; that boy is burning up my house;' and I taken her and carried her back home, and from then on I had to lock the house up and stay in there myself, because sometimes she would get away.'

Mary Banks, one of the complainants, the wife of Eli Banks and daughter of the grantor, in detailing the acts of the grantor which indicated to her, the witness, that the grantor was incompetent, said:

'Well, in the first place, some nights she would get up in bed at dead hours of the night and put on her clothes and string up her shoes and put all her clothes on the trunks and open drawers and doors and sit out in the middle of the floor, and I would wake up and ask her what she was doing out there, and she said she was fixing to move, she was looking for the echoes to come and move her, and in one instance she got away, and I would have to go and hunt her, and she would talk rough by-words, talk to herself all night, and some nights she would get up and go out on the porch and holler just as loud as she could, talking to the echoes; said they would come and move her. I had a little baby at that time, and she would tend to it sometimes and threaten to throw it out doors, and then she would pick at the doors and windows and for half hours would walk back and forth picking at them and walking.'

This witness testified further that the defendant, Sim Travis, the grantee in the deed under consideration, with whom the grantee made her home, at least acquiesced in the action taken to have her confined in the hospital for the insane on the theory that she was mentally deficient at the time. The testimony of the witness on this point is as follows:

'Q. When they started to send her off to the insane hospital, was Sim Travis one of the parties tryng to send her off? A. Yes sir; one of the head ones, because he sent me word about two weeks before that to come see about my mother that she was losing her mind; she would wander through the field at night and he would find her; end I went up there and prevailed with her to come and live with me, and she said 'Yes,' and the next I heard she was on the way to the hospital, and I got my husband to go up there that evening and bring her to stay with me. Q. Did Sim say anything to you about whether or not she was crazy? A. Yes, sir. Q....