Wright v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 19 February 1884
• Citation: 18 N.W. 486,59 Wis. 569
• Parties: WRIGHT v. JACKSON.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

59 Wis. 569

18 N.W. 486

WRIGHT

v.JACKSON.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Filed February 19, 1884.

Appeal from circuit court, Crawford county.

The plaintiff is the son and only heir at law of Charles Wright, late of the city of Prairie du Chien, who died in August, 1865, intestate. April 23, 1864, Charles Wright executed to the defendant (his brother-in-law) a conveyance of a certain house and lot, and another conveyance of his interest, being an undivided half in four other lots, all in that city. The first deed expresses a consideration of $2,100, and the other of $400. The plaintiff was then about eight years of age. Soon after he reached the age of 21 years, the plaintiff brought this action to set aside those deeds because of the alleged insanity of his father when they were executed. When the cause came on for trial (which was in 1878) the court impaneled a jury, to whom the following question was submitted: “Was Charles Wright, on the twenty-third of April, 1864, at the time he executed the deed to Robert R. Jackson, insane and incapable of making such a contract?” After hearing the testimony, the jury returned an affirmative answer to the question. At a subsequent term the court ordered that further testimony be taken; and considerable testimony was thereafter taken by both parties pursuant to such order.

In November, 1882, the circuit court filed his findings of fact which, together with his conclusions of law, are as follows: “(1) That Charles Wright, for a legal and valuable consideration, conveyed the estate mentioned in the complaint to the defendant, Robert R. Jackson. (2) That for a valuable consideration the defendant, on the ______ day of ______, 1869, conveyed the same to John Jackson. (3) That, under the circumstances, the disposition of the property by Charles Wright to the defendant, Robert R. Jackson, was a proper and judicious disposition of the same. (4) Non constat the verdict of the jury, I find that at the time of executing the deed of conveyance to the defendant, the deceased Charles Wright was mentally capable of contracting and fully capable of judging of the force, effect, and propriety of making the contract of conveyance, and that his conveyance to the defendant was his rational act, after full and careful deliberation. (5) I find that the property in controversy is not worth to exceed twelve hundred dollars. (6) I find that no fraud was practiced by the defendant upon Charles Wright in the purchase of the property from him. (7) I find that the complaint in this action is not sustained.

“I find, as a conclusion of law, that the plaintiff take nothing by his action herein, and that the defendant have judgment against the plaintiff for his costs and disbursements in the action.”

Judgment for the defendant dismissing the complaint, and for costs, was afterwards duly entered, pursuant to such findings and conclusion. The plaintiff appeals from such judgment. The case is further stated in the opinion.Thomas & Fuller, for appellant, John M. Wright.

Brooks & Dutcher and D. Webster, for respondent, Robert R. Jackson.

LYON, J.

The controlling question to be determined is, was Charles Wright of sound mind when he executed to the defendant the conveyances of April 23, 1864, which the plaintiff, his heir at law, seeks by this action to set aside? that is to say, had he sufficient mental ability to know what he was doing and the nature of the act done? Burnham v. Mitchell, 34 Wis. 117, and cases cited. It appears that as early as 1841, Mr. Wright, then a resident of the state of New York, became insane. The only information the record gives us of the particular type of his insanity is that he was in a state of great excitement. He was placed in an asylum for the insane at Hartford, Connecticut. He remained there a few months, and then returned to his home, apparently well. He showed no signs of a return of the malady until 1844. Then he again became excited and unsettled in his mind. We learn little of his condition from that time until 1846, during which year he was placed in an insane asylum at Utica, New York. He was doubtless then insane, and continued so for a year. He then became so much improved that he was employed in the institution a portion of the time for his board, and a portion of the time he received wages. After this his malady returned, and he was a patient for several months. He then became better, and was again employed in the institution under wages until the summer of 1849, when he finally left the asylum.

There is no reason to believe, and nothing in the testimony tending to show, that for the next 10 years after he left the Utica asylum he was not perfectly sane. During that time he was more or less engaged in mercantile business, both as clerk and proprietor. He was a gentleman of culture and refinement, an expert in music, of irreproachable conduct and manners, was very social, and, withal, had excellent business qualifications. In 1855 he married a sister of the defendant, removed to Prairie du Chien, and in 1856 became a partner in the mercantile house of Pelton, Wright & Co. That firm consisted of Edward Pelton, Mr. Wright, and Olson Jackson, who is a brother of the defendant. The firm continued in business until 1860. In the fall of 1859 Mrs. Wright died. A few weeks later Mr. Wright went to New York and purchased a stock of goods. On his return to Prairie du Chien he exhibited symptoms of a return of his old malady. These increased upon him until he became entirely insane, and he had to be watched and guarded constantly, sometimes confined. After a few months he was taken to some institution for the insane in Michigan, where he remained until the Wisconsin asylum for the insane was opened, about 1861. He was then placed in that asylum and remained there until early in the year 1864. Whether he was regularly discharged therefrom or left without a discharge does not clearly appear, and is not very important. Dr. Sawyer, then an assistant physician of the asylum, whose deposition was taken on behalf of the plaintiff, speaks of his discharge. However that may be, there is no proof that he was discharged as cured. The testimony rather raises a contrary inference, for Dr. Sawyer testified that he was then insane, and there was no reason to expect his entire recovery.

After Mr. Wright left the asylum he stopped for some time in Madison, during the session of the legislature of 1864. He complained of the management of the asylum, and seems to have presented a memorial to the legislature for the purpose of procuring the discharge of its officers. During the winter he made one or more visits to Prairie du Chien, and at the close of the session of the legislature, early in April, returned and remained there permanently until he died. After his return to Prairie du Chien his hostility to the officers of the asylum continued, and he wrote articles for publication in the newspapers, reflecting on its management. There is also testimony to the effect that he had strong animosity against his brothers-in-law Olson and John Jackson, the latter of whom was married to Mr. Wright's sister, and with whom the plaintiff lived after the death of his mother. After the execution of the conveyances in controversey Mr. Wright went to reside with his brother-in-law and sister, Mr. and Mrs. John Jackson, and continued to reside with them until his death. During that time he failed gradually in body and mind. Before he died he became almost imbecile, but his mental infirmity does not seem to have been characterized by the excitement and delusions so marked in the former attacks of his malady.

Numerous witnesses were examined by the respective parties, and a very large amount of testimony taken, relative to the mental condition of Mr. Wright from the time he left the asylum until he died, particularly during the time preceding the execution of the deeds in controversy. This testimony has been read and reread with the utmost care and attention. We cannot discuss all of it here in detail, and it would serve no useful purpose to do so. That which is believed to be most important will be hereafter considered. It may be observed, generally, of this testimony that it was taken 12 or 14 years after the events transpired to which it relates. Some of the witnesses who had formed opinions one way or the other, in 1864, as to the sanity or insanity of Mr. Wright, when they came to testify, changed their former opinions. Others testified to their opinions on the subject, when further examination disclosed that they really knew little or nothing of the facts and circumstances, upon which alone an intelligent opinion could be formed. Again, some witnesses testified, with great positiveness and particularity, to casual conversations and isolated facts, not of a character likely to impress themselves upon the memory. Besides, on many points of fact the testimony is in direct conflict, as are the opinions of the various witnesses as to the mental condition of Mr. Wright at any given time. This conflict of fact and opinion in the testimony, so much of which is subject to one or more of the infirmities just mentioned, would, were such testimony alone considered, leave the mind in great doubt as to what was the actual mental condition of Mr. Wright when he executed the deeds. Did the testimony furnish no other guide? It is probable that the plaintiff would be entitled to judgment under the rule applied in Ripley v. Babcock, 13 Wis. 425, that when the lunacy is once established the burden is on the party claiming, through any act of the lunatic, to show that it was done in a lucid interval. In this case the previous insanity of Mr. Wright was established; and the uncertain, unsatisfactory, and conflicting testimony above referred to, standing alone, would be quite insufficient to prove a lucid interval when he made the deed.

But there are facts in the case established by satisfactory evidence,...