West v. Whittle

• Decision Date: 09 December 1907
• Citation: 106 S.W. 955
• Parties: WEST v. WHITTLE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

106 S.W. 955

WEST v. WHITTLE.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

December 9, 1907.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Johnson County; Jeremia G. Wallace, Judge.

Action by William Whittle, Sr., by William Whittle, Jr., his next friend, against W. H. West. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Cravens & Covington and J. D. Hunt, for appellant. Winchester & Martin, for appellee.

HART, J.

This suit was instituted by William Whittle, Jr., as next friend of William Whittle, Sr., his father, against W. H. West to cancel a deed executed by his father to West conveying certain mineral rights to lands situated in Johnson county, Ark. The tract contained 80 acres, and the consideration was $666 2/3. The chancellor found in favor of the plaintiff, canceling the deed, and ordered the consideration restored to the defendant, and a decree was entered accordingly. Defendant has appealed.

It was alleged that Whittle, Sr., had been for many years a confirmed drunkard; that he was drunk on the day the deed was executed; that West was his intimate friend and confidential adviser, and that the price paid was wholly inadequate; and that plaintiff was mentally incapacitated to make a deed. The undisputed testimony shows that Mr. Whittle, Sr., is 62 years old; that he has been a whisky drinker all his life; that for the past 20 years he has been a hard drinker; that for the last 10 or 15 years he has been an habitual drunkard; that W. H. West was his confidential friend, and for many years had collected his rents for him. Most of the witnesses agree that Whittle was a man of little education, but was possessed of average intelligence, and that he was honest. All agree that his intellect had been impaired by the excessive use of whisky, but the testimony is conflicting as to the extent his mental faculties had been weakened. There is an irreconcilable conflict in the testimony of the witnesses as to whether or not at the time he executed the deed Wm. Whittle, Sr., was competent to bind himself by deed. There were a large number of witnesses who testified on this point. It would serve no useful purpose to abstract their testimony here. Suffice it to say that the witnesses for the plaintiff testified that he was incompetent, and the witnesses for the defendant were equally positive that he was competent, to execute the deed and transact business in general. The witnesses were equally credible, and no doubt equally honest in their belief, and detailed the facts and circumstances upon which their opinion was based as they presented themselves to their minds.

This is not a case where the fact of drunkenness at the time of the execution of the deed alone is relied upon to establish the mental incapacity; but it is rather one where the party, by reason of long and continued use of intoxicating liquors to excess, has become incapable of managing his business, and mentally incompetent to dispose of his property. The rule in this class of cases is laid down in the case of Kelley's Heirs v. McGuire, 15 Ark. 555, to be that, "while the solemn contracts between men should never be disturbed on slight grounds, yet it may perhaps be assumed as a safe general rule that whenever a person, through age, decrepitude, affliction, or...