Watts v. Vansant

Page, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On the 29th of December, 1902, James E. Vansant, assignee of a mortgage from Sallie Watts to the German Building Association, under a power contained therein, made sale of the mortgaged premises and reported the same to the lower Court. The appellant filed exceptions to ^'ratification, and the appellee set up by his answer, among other things, that the appellant had no standing in Court to file exceptions to the ratification of the sale, because theretofore, that is on the 14th May, 1900, she, with her late husband, had conveyed all her interest in the mortgaged premises to one Henry R. Gunther. On the nth March, 1903, the parties, then being about to take testimony in support of the exceptions, agreed in writing that “the testimony about to be taken, shall only concern” the matter of the conveyance to Gunther; “because, it is conceded by the counsel for the exceptant, that if the Court shall decide that she has parted with her equity of redemption in the Imperial Hotel by the deed to Gunther, the said Sallie Watts cannot sustain her exceptions on any one of the other points.” The right of appeal to the Court of Appeals was reserved to either party.

It is not disputed that the appellant did execute the deed in question; but she contends that it is in fact invalid and inoperative. . The Court below overruled the contention, and dismissed the exceptions; and from the order of the .Court ■ this appeal was taken. ⁵⁷⁹ It is contended on the part of the appellant that the deed is invalid, first, because at the time of its execution she was in such a condition of intoxication as to be incapable of executing a valid deed or contract; secondly, that the deed was ob tained from her by fraud practiced upon her by Gunther, Butke and Bannon, with the view of depriving her “of her right to ever become relieved of the original mortgage,” and to “discredit her with her creditors; ” and thirdly, because of undue influence, which she was unable to resist, exercised over her by her attorney, James P. Bannon. The proof undoubtedly shows that Mrs. Watts was much addicted to drink. More than once she had become an inmate of Mount Hope Retreat, seeking there some relief from her unfortunate habit.

Dr. Hill, the physician in charge ot that institution, testified that her “mind was not at any time impaired,” her “usual" condition when brought there was such as ordinarily follows a debauch or prolonged intoxication, and that “she improved rapidly when she got rid of the stimulants.” She wás first received in the institution, on the 20th March 1900, and discharged 13th April, 1900; again on 20th April, 1900, and discharged 10th May, 1900; and again 15th May. and left 30th May, 1 goo. When she went out of the institution, on the 10th May, “she was sober and normal in' her condition,” and according to Dr. Hill, “as capable” then of making a valid deed or contract, as at any time of her life. As to her condition from that day up to the 14th when she executed the deed, we have no direct evidence, except what she has testified to herself; that she was drinking “every day,” “all the time,” “on the 10th May,” &c. Her testimony, taking it altogether, does not impress us, and when it is not corroborated in some manner, we cannot place much reliance upon it.

Certain it is, that all the persons present at the execution 01 the deed, who have testified, state that she was entirely capable of attending to the business in which she was engaged. Butke said, she seemed to understand the business and was “just as sound in (mental and physical) health as she is today.” She came to Bannon’s office voluntarily, and signed her name, ⁵⁸⁰ in such an “even and smooth” manner, as to attract the notice of the learned Judge below, so that in his opinion, as he states, “her-signature alone goes far — to show that there was nothing wrong with her in mind or body.” In this state of the proof; we cannot hold; that it has been shown, that at the time of the execution of the deed, she was incapable mentally of making a valid deed. The next point made by the appellant is that the deed was procured by fraud, with the view of depriving her of all her rights under the original mortgage, that is, the mortgage under which the sale objected to was made. Of the specific motive here mentioned, or indeed of any other particular motive to accomplish a fraud, there is not the slightest evidence.

There is no doubt tha’t Mrs. Watts at the time of the execution of the deed was, and for some time prior thereto had been, hard pressed by her creditors. She had already been sued by several of them, and at least a part of her property had been seized for overdue taxes. She had also applied to Mr. Bannon, to devise some plan for her relief. On the eleventh of May, she came to