Warfield v. Fisk

• Decision Date: 02 January 1884
• Citation: 136 Mass. 219
• Parties: David L. Warfield v. James J. Fisk
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

136 Mass. 219

David L. Warfield v. James J. Fisk

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

January 2, 1884

Argued October 3, 1883

Worcester.

Demurrer overruled.

F. P Goulding, for the defendant.

T. G Kent, for the plaintiff.

Holmes J. Field & W. Allen JJ., absent.

OPINION

Holmes, J.

This is a bill in equity, brought by the guardian of an insane person, to compel a reconveyance of land conveyed by his ward to the defendant. The bill alleges that, although the deed was absolute in form, it was intended by the parties only as a mortgage to indemnify the defendant against loss upon a bond executed by him as part of the same transaction, and conditioned for the payment of debts and legacies mentioned in a certain will of the obligee, said ward, in case the estate of the latter was not sufficient to pay them at the time of his decease. It is alleged that this bond was the only consideration of the deed, and the bill offers to surrender it and to release the defendant from all liability upon it. The land is necessary for the ward's support. The defendant demurs.

There is nothing in the objection that the alleged mortgage is not collateral to any principal obligation; Campbell v. Dearborn, 109 Mass. 130, 144; Murphy v. Calley, 1 Allen 107; or that the transaction set forth was an absolute conveyance in consideration of the defendant's executing the bond. The bill sufficiently alleges that it was a mortgage; Hassam v. Barrett, 115 Mass. 256; and even if facts are admitted which would lead to a different conclusion at the hearing, we cannot draw inferences of fact upon demurrer. The admissions are not sufficient to establish that the conveyance was absolute, as matter of law, against the express averments of the bill.

Assuming the transaction to have been a mortgage, the question is whether the plaintiff shows a title to be relieved from it. We are by no means prepared to say that a guardian has any more power, generally speaking, to discharge a bargain intelligently made by his ward, when sui juris, in support of his will, than he has to cancel the will itself. But in this case it is alleged that the mortgaged property is needed for the ward's support, and the guardian's application to the court for relief carries with it an application for any authority which this court can confer. The powers of guardians to make an election on behalf of their wards have been pretty liberally construed in...