Wright v. Fisher
| Decision Date | 14 April 1887 |
| Citation | 65 Mich. 275,32 N.W. 605 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | WRIGHT v. FISHER. |
Appeal from superior court of Detroit. In chancery.
Thomas Davis, (C.J. Walker, of counsel,) for complainant and appellant.
William H. Wells, for defendant.
The complainant in his bill, as amended, avers, substantially that his father died in 1851, leaving personalty and two pieces of real estate; that complainant was then seven years of age, and was soon thereafter placed under guardianship. Six months after the death of his father, the mother of complainant married the defendant. The defendant and the widow were administrators of the estate of complainant's father. That defendant was for some years guardian over complainant, and was such guardian when he reached his majority, at which time he settled with complainant; that, a few months after complainant became of age, he was put under the guardianship of his mother as a spendthrift, on October 1st, 1864; that complainant has been incapable of taking care of his property since that time; that, while so under guardianship, defendant, acting in behalf of the guardian and for himself, induced complainant to consent to the transfer of an interest in said two pieces of realty, and informed complainant that, upon such consent, the said guardian would resign, and thus enable complainant to convey said interest to her; that said guardian resigned November 14, 1865, and on November 15, 1865, while the complainant was under the influence of liquor, defendant induced him to sign a paper which, he said, would give the mother of complainant, who had been his guardian, a life-estate in the two pieces of realty and that he would be paid $10,000 therefor; that complainant signed the paper upon such representations, without legal advice; that the value of the property was $30,000; that complainant received $5,000 in cash, and was to receive a mortgage for $5,000; that of the $5,000 cash he returned to his mother shortly afterwards $3,500; that he never received the mortgage, never recorded it, never received any money on it, and never discharged it; that no order of court was made authorizing the transfer; that Emily A. Fisher, the mother of complainant, died in September, 1883; that complainant had been told before her death by her, and by defendant, that the property would revert to him at her death; that the records show that the paper signed by complainant was a deed of an absolute fee of the two pieces of real estate, and that his mother sold one piece to George H. Hammond, in 1873, for over $20,000, and one piece to defendant, July 28, 1877, for $25,000, which last piece is still in defendant's name; that complainant's mother left a will, dated October 21, 1871, probated December 11, 1883, by which all her property was left to defendant, who was named as executor, and who was charged therein with the comfortable support, care, and attendance of complainant during his life; that she left no property on her death except apparel; that defendant, by undue influence, obtained her money and property, and defeated the trust charged in the will; that defendant has paid complainant about $50 since the death of complainant's mother. Defendant is charged with a scheme of fraud in obtaining deed to complainant's mother from complainant, and in obtaining money and property afterwards from her. The prayer is to set aside deeds as to piece of realty now owned by defendant.
The defendant admits many of the allegations in the bill of complaint, but denies that, while complainant was under guardianship, as a spendthrift, the defendant persuaded him to consent to a transfer of an interest in the property; denies that there was any fraud in the resignation of complainant's mother as guardian, or in the procurement of the deed of the real estate to her; avers that complainant was under no disability when said deed was made, and that he knew the nature of the instrument executed; denies that he, or complainant's mother, misrepresented the purport of the paper, or that he persuaded complainant to return any of the $5,000 in cash to his mother; avers that the mortgage for $5,000 was received by complainant, and was afterwards paid in full and discharged; denies that the property conveyed was worth $30,000 at the time of such conveyance; and denies that complainant was without legal advice; denies that complainant was ever informed by him, or by the mother, that the property would revert to complainant upon her death; denies that complainant was under the influence of liquor when he executed the deed to his mother; denies that he obtained by undue influence the money and property of complainant's mother; and denies all and every charge of fraud against him.
The bill was filed May 12, 1885, in behalf of said complainant, by James W. Romeyn, his guardian, duly appointed by the probate court of Wayne county, in the superior court for the city of Detroit, in chancery. The testimony was principally taken before a circuit court commissioner, and by depositions. March 18, 1886, the cause was heard upon the pleadings and proofs before Hon. J. LOGAN CHIPMAN, judge of said court, and June 14, 1886, a decree was entered therein dismissing complainant's bill, with costs. From this decree complainant appeals to this court.
The proof of the alleged fraud is confined exclusively to the testimony of the complainant and one Helen E. Spillane, a former servant in the household of the defendant. The defense rests chiefly upon the evidence of the defendant, corroborated as to the execution of the deed by Albert H. Wilkinson, who drafted it and the other conveyances, and took the acknowledgments of the same. We are not satisfied that the charge of fraud is made out or established by the proofs. The complainant, by his own evidence, shows that nearly all the time since he became of age his only occupation has been the spending, in excessive dissipation, of what money and property came into his hands from his father's estate, and what he could borrow or obtain from his mother or defendant. When he could procure no money, he would pawn his clothes to obtain drink. When he had no clothes to pawn, he would resort to larceny and forgery to obtain the means to gratify his appetite. He has been in the Detroit house of correction several times. He was, however, a spendthrift rather than an incompetent. It is not shown anywhere that his mind was so impaired, at the time of the deeding of this property to his mother, that he was incapable of transacting business. The ground of incompetency alleged and relied upon is that he was drunk at the time, and, while thus intoxicated, was not in a fit condition of mind to understand the nature of the business he was engaged in; and that, while thus stupefied and benumbed mentally by liquor, he was unduly persuaded to make the conveyance, and defrauded by the false representation that he was only conveying his interest while his mother lived, and that the whole property would revert to him at her death.
It is not shown or claimed that, at any time up to the present, the mind of the complainant has been so weakened that he is non compos mentis, except when under the influence of liquor. Indeed, the whole case of the complainant is based upon his testimony, which testimony in itself refutes any idea that his mind is so affected as to preclude responsibility for or knowledge of his acts when sober. The whole truth is that his appetite for liquor is so insatiate and uncontrollable that he would barter away all he possessed in this world, and his hope of happiness in the next, for its gratification. He is now a spendthrift when intoxicated, and is not satisfied to remain sober, and therefore needs a guardian as long as he possesses property.
But at the time the conveyance to his mother was made he was only 22 years of age, and the question arises as to his condition then, and the knowledge of the defendant and the mother as to his habits of life, and the probable result of his and their action in thus transferring the property from the son to the mother. It seems undisputed that, at the attaining of his majority, he settled with his guardian, the defendant, for his share of the personal estate of his father, and was paid...
To continue reading
Request your trial