West v. Whittle

• Decision Date: 09 December 1907
• Citation: 106 S.W. 955,84 Ark. 490
• Parties: WEST v. WHITTLE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

106 S.W. 955

84 Ark. 490

WEST v. WHITTLE

Supreme Court of Arkansas

December 9, 1907

Appeal from Johnson Chancery Court; Jeremiah G. Wallace, Chancellor affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cravens & Covington, and J. D. Hunt, for appellant.

Winchester & Martin, for appellee.

OPINION

HART, J.

This a suit was instituted by William Whittle, Jr., as next friend of William Whittle, St., 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 Arkansas. The tract contained eighty acres, and the consideration was $ 666 2-3.

The chancellor found in favor of the plaintiff, cancelling 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, 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 twenty years he has been a hard drinker; that for the last ten or fifteen 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 agreed 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 that 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 Wt. Whittle, Sr., was competent to bind himself by deed. There was 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 was equally positive that he was competent, to execute the deed and transact business in general. The witnesses are 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 Kelly'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 disease, becomes imbecile and incapable of managing his affairs, an unreasonable or improvident disposition of his property will be set aside in a court of chancery." This rule has been repeatedly followed ever since by this court, being applied in each case as the facts warranted. Oxford v. Hopson, 73 Ark. 170, 83 S.W. 942; ...