Williams v. Sapieha

• Decision Date: 06 December 1900
• Citation: 59 S.W. 947
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. SAPIEHA.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

59 S.W. 947

WILLIAMS v.SAPIEHA.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

December 6, 1900.

Appeal from district court, Ft. Bend county; Wells Thompson, Judge.

Suit by E. J. Williams, as guardian of T. D. Mason, an incompetent, against Louis Sapieha.From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.Affirmed.

Slyfield & Davidson, for appellant.Peareson & Wharton, for appellee.

GILL, J.

E. J. Williams, as guardian of T. D. Mason, a person non compos mentis, brought this suit against Louis Sapieha, a nonresident, to remove cloud from his title to an alleged undivided interest in one-half of a league of land situated in Ft. Bend county.Lee Fabje became guardian pending the suit, and was made partyplaintiff in Williams' stead.The land was alleged to be the property of his ward, who was averred to be a non compos mentis, and to have been in that condition since his birth.The instruments which are averred to constitute a cloud upon the title are a power of attorney from his ward to one J. W. Tolson, and a deed as attorney in fact to Sapieha.The defendant was cited by publication, and, failing to appear and answer, C. R. Wharton, an attorney at law, was appointed by the court to represent him.The grounds upon which plaintiff sought to set aside the power of attorney were: First, that it was a forgery; and, second, that at the date of its execution his ward was non compos mentis, and therefore incapable of binding himself by contract.It was also averred that defendant, when he bought from Tolson, knew of Mason's mental condition.The attorney appointed by the court answered by general denial, and denial of notice of Mason's alleged disability, and prayed that defendant be quieted in his title.A trial before the court without a jury resulted in a judgment for defendant; the court finding as a fact that T. D. Mason at the date of the execution of the two instruments complained of was of weak mind, but that this weakness was not of such a nature as to disqualify him from binding himself by contract.The court also found that Sapieha bought the land without notice of Mason's condition, that he paid full value for the land, and that the transaction was free from fraud and in all respects fair and open.The court then concluded that the deed was not void, but, if the idiocy of Mason be conceded, it was, at most, voidable, and that as there was no offer on the part of plaintiff to return the purchase money, and as it was not made to appear that the parties could be placed in statu quo, the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief prayed for.A decree was entered accordingly, from which the guardian has appealed.

The facts are as follows: Appellant's ward acquired the land in controversy by the will of his deceased grandfather; the tract being devised to him and his brotherD. O. Mason as tenants in common.On the 6th day of July, 1878, T. D. Mason, then being 35 years of age, executed and delivered to J. W. Tolson a power of attorney whereby said Tolson was authorized, as his attorney in fact, to sell his interest in said land, and to make a deed to the purchaser.This instrument was duly acknowledged before a notary public and placed of record in Ft. Bend county.On January 22, 1879, Frank and Kate Fabje, the mother and stepfather of T. D. Mason, also executed to Tolson a power of attorney, whereby he was authorized to sell and convey such interest as they had in the land.On the 19th day of March, 1879, Tolson, as attorney in fact for the parties above named, joined by D. O. Mason, the brother of T. D. Mason, sold and conveyed the entire half league to the defendant Sapieha.T. D. Mason had no guardian at the dates of these transactions, and never had one until 1891, just prior to the first effort to recover this land on the ground of his mental disability.It was agreed by the attorneys for plaintiff that the consideration paid for the land by defendant, as shown by the recitals in the deed, was a fair and adequate price therefor.A great number of witnesses who claimed to have known the ward all his life testified that he was non compos mentis, had been so from his birth, and had never been mentally fit to transact business or look after his affairs; and the evidence on this issue preponderates so overwhelmingly in favor of plaintiff that we have concluded to dispose of the appeal on the theory that his mental incompetency was established, and we so find.

As has been seen, the court found as a fact that the purchaser paid a fair value, and had no notice of Mason's mental condition, and we are of opinion that the evidence is sufficient to support the finding.It is true, one of the witnesses states that the "Frenchman who came to buy the blue-ridge land was in the same house with T. D. Mason about that time, and that even a stranger could not be with him ten minutes without discovering that he was an idiot"; but it was also shown that at times Mason talked intelligently and well, that he could read, and that he wrote a good hand.It was proven that his mother and stepfather and his brother joined in the sale, and that Sapieha was a foreigner and a stranger.Notwithstanding the fact that plaintiff contends that his ward has been an idiot from birth, it appears that somehow he has learned to read and write.He testified with apparent intelligence in this case, and his mother and other relations have dealt with him in business matters; and his half-brother, a witness in this cause, contested an application for guardianship on the ground that he was not non compos and did not need a guardian.Notwithstanding his large property interests, he had no guardian until he was about 45 years of age.Under this...