Hay v. Miller
| Decision Date | 21 April 1896 |
| Citation | 66 N.W. 1115,48 Neb. 156 |
| Parties | HAY v. MILLER ET AL. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Error as to the form in which an issue of fact in an equity cause is submitted to the jury for decision is not available in this court, where no exception was taken thereto in the trial court, and the judgment is not assailed on that ground in the petition in error.
2. A nonprofessional witness may give his opinion as to sanity as the result of his personal observation of the person whose sanity or mental condition is questioned, after first stating the facts which he observed.
3. While mere imbecility or weakness of mind in a grantor will not, in the absence of fraud, avoid his deed, insanity will do so if of such a character as to induce the conveyance, although such insanity may not amount to a complete dethronement of reason and understanding upon all subjects. Dewey v. Allgire, 55 N. W. 276, 37 Neb. 6, followed.
4. Where there was sufficient evidence properly admitted to sustain the findings, they will not be disturbed.
Error to district court, Douglas county; Walton, Judge.
Action by Mary E. Miller and others against Mary Hay to cancel a deed. There was a judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Kennedy, Gilbert & Anderson, for plaintiff in error.
Cowin & McHugh and G. W. Ambrose, for defendants in error.
On the 25th day of October, 1890, Joseph Manning made, executed and delivered to Mary Hay a warranty deed purporting to convey to the latter, his niece, all his real estate and personal property and effects. His property consisted of a large number of lots in the city of Florence, in the county of Douglas, and about $1,200 in money. The consideration for making the conveyance, as expressed in the deed, is “that the said Mary Hay has undertaken and agrees to furnish to the grantor a good, comfortable home in her family, and suitable support, during the remainder of his natural life, and at his death a suitable burial; all at her own expense.” On the 6th day of November--12 days after the delivery of the deed--Manning died, intestate, at the home of Mrs. Hay, in the county of Douglas, and subsequently William Colburn was duly appointed administrator de bonis non of the estate of said Manning, and qualified as such officer. On the 18th day of January, 1891, Mary E. Miller, Lizzie Rogerson, John Morisey, and Maggie Stangelan, the grandchildren and sole heirs at law of the said Joseph Manning, deceased, the said administrator joining with them, brought this action in the court below against the said Mary Hay and William Hay, her husband, to annul and cancel said deed on the ground that the grantor at the date of the execution of the instrument was of unsound mind, and incapable of understanding the nature or effect of his acts; and, further, that the grantee obtained the conveyance through fraud and undue influence. No testimony was offered on the trial in support of the allegations in the petition of fraud and undue influence. On application of the plaintiffs the court made an order directing that there be tried by a jury the issue whether or not the said Joseph Manning, at the time of the making and executing of the deed in question, was of unsound mind. Upon the hearing the jury returned a verdict finding the said issue in favor of the plaintiffs, and that said Manning, by reason of his mental condition, was incapable of making a disposition of his property, or to realize the purport and effect of his acts when he executed the deed. A motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial was overruled, and thereupon the remaining issues in the case presented by the pleadings were tried to the court. Findings in favor of the plaintiff were made, and a decree was entered setting aside and canceling the deed, and adjudging the grandchildren of the deceased to be the owners of the property described in the conveyance. Mrs. Hay...
To continue reading
Request your trial