Essary v. Marvel

274 Ill. 576
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 24, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 274 Ill. 576 (Essary v. Marvel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Essary v. Marvel, 274 Ill. 576 (Ill. 1916).

Opinion

■Mr. Justice Duncan

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff in error filed a petition in the county court of Franklin county to sell real estate to pay debts and to cancel certain warranty deeds made by Joseph F. Watson, Sr., deceased, on October 23, 1908, to his son Joseph F. Watson, Jr., and to Nellie Marvel, his daughter, and a mortgage deed made after said date by Joseph F. Watson, Sr., to George H. Mitchell, as clouds on the title. Said grantees and Charles Watson, as children and only heirs of said deceased, and said mortgagee, were named as defendants to the petition, which, in addition to the statutory averments required in a petition to sell real estate to pay debts of a deceased, charged that said warranty deeds were made without valuable consideration therefor; that they were procured by fraud, misrepresentations, intimidation and undue influence; that at the making thereof, and for many years prior thereto, said Joseph F. Watson, Sr., was of unsound mind and incapable of transacting the usual and ordinary business affairs of life, and by reason of such unsoundness of mind was incapable of executing a valid deed of conveyance and that said deeds are therefore invalid. All the defendants except Charles Watson filed answers denying the allegations in the petition, Charles Watson making default. On the hearing the court found against the petitioner and denied his prayer for the cancellation of said deeds, but made an order for the sale of the coal under another tract of land not involved in this court and of which the deceased died seized.'

There is no evidence in the record tending to show intimidation or undue influence in any form and there is no proof of fraud, actual or constructive, as the evidence does not show the deceased owed any debt at the time the deeds in question were made that is unpaid or that they were made in contemplation of his becoming indebted. The only ground urged by plaintiff in error for a reversal of the judgment is that Joseph’F. Watson, Sr., had not sufficient mental capacity to make a valid deed when he executed the deeds in question.

The evidence in the record shows that the deceased owned in his lifetime one hundred and sixty acres of land situated in Saline county, Illinois, and that he had lived most all of his life on the part of it in question. In November, 1907, he conveyed forty acres thereof to his illegitimate daughter, May Samuels, reserving the coal and other mineral rights thereunder, which by the decree in this case were ordered sold. During the last five or more years of his life he and his wife were estranged and lived apart. For about sixteen months prior to 1908 he lived with his daughter, Nellie Marvel, wife of Logan Marvel, while his wife lived with his son Joe, on the old homestead. During 1908 he lived with Joe at the homestead, and -while his wife lived there also and he seemed solicitous about her being well cared for, yet they remained estranged up to her death. In January, 1909, he went to Nellie’s home in Franklin county and there lived until he died, June 30, 1911, leaving the said three children and several illegitimate children but no widow him surviving. A conservator was appointed in 1910 to have the custody of the person and the care of the property of Watson, and the testimony of A. J. Sanders shows that he was appointed as such conservator some time in the year 1909. At the death of Watson his conservator became his administrator, and Nellie Marvel had probated and allowed a claim against his estate for near $1500 for care and support of her father, and Dr. Marcus D. L. Carter also had a claim allowed against his estate, presumably for services as a physician, and they are the principal witnesses for defendants in error. Their competency as witnesses was objected to under section 2 of the statute on evidence and depositions, and that question is presented here for determination preliminary to the main question. It is true, as suggested by defendant in error Joseph F. Watson, Jr., that they are interested in the result of this suit, and that Nellie Marvel, although denying the allegations of the petition as to the incompetency of the deceased to make the deeds in question, was nevertheless palpably in sympathy with the plaintiff in error and more interested in his recovering in the suit. They were called as witnesses by the plaintiff in error. Joseph F. Watson, Jr., was not defending the suit as an heir or devisee of his father but as a grantee in the deed made to him by his father, the deceased. Said section of the statute does not therefore give him the privilege to have their testimony excluded on the ground that they are incompetent witnesses when called by the administrator of the deceased. Hudson v. Hudson, 237 Ill. 9; Grindle v. Grindle, 240 id. 143.

The deceased had a stroke of paralysis some three or five years before he made the deeds in question, October 23, 1908, which affected his lower limbs and his tongue, so that up to the time he made those deeds his locomotion and his speech were slightly affected thereby so as to be noticeable to those who were intimately acquainted with him. In July and August, 1908, he had a very severe illness, and during that illness sent for Dr. Chestine and E. J. Hobbs, a notary public, and informed Hobbs that he was pretty sick and wanted to deed to his daughter, Nellie Marvel, forty acres of his land, to his son Joe forty acres, and to James Watson, an illegitimate son, forty acres. He dictated to Hobbs how he wanted, the deeds made, what lands he wanted to deed to each one of the children, and had a life estate reserved to himself in all of the deeds. The deeds were duly and voluntarily executed as he requested, and the deceased handed the deeds to Hobbs with this statement: “I want you to keep them [the deeds] until I call for them during my lifetime or on my death deliver them to the parties to whom they are made.” Hobbs took the deeds and placed them in a safety deposit box in a bank, and that same afternoon Nellie Marvel, the daughter, went to.Hobbs with an order from her father for the deeds. Standing on his promise to her father he refused to deliver her the deeds but delivered them in person to him that evening, and the deceased told him then that his children had become dissatisfied with the way the deeds were made and that he was going to make other deeds, and he then burned the deeds Hobbs returned to him. He then, or within a very few days thereafter, executed before Hobbs, as notary public, six other deeds for those lands,—one to each of said grantees, one to his son Charles, one to his wife and one to Bert Watson, another illegitimate son,— with stipulations in some of the deeds that his children, including Charles, should pay back to the deceased’s estate certain moneys received by them, and those deeds were dictated by the deceased and placed in Hobbs’ hands with similar instructions for delivery as to the former three deeds. The deceased again called on Hobbs for the six deeds, and in the presence of Charles, who was then complaining at the way they were made, the deceased burned them, remarking, “Now, by God, they are gone,” and further saying he was going to do as he pleased, as he had worked for and got the land himself. Hobbs had known him intimately for ten or twelve years and lived within two miles of him. He testified to the foregoing facts and they are not disputed, and further testified that the deceased was then in his right mind and that he had every reason to believe that he understood what he was doing on those occasions ; that his condition was normal and that there was nothing that occurred out of the ordinary in his actions or conversations.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bowman v. Illinois Central Railroad
132 N.E.2d 558 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1956)
McCrillis v. Utterback
74 N.E.2d 682 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1947)
Houdek v. Ehrenberger
72 N.E.2d 837 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1947)
Moneta v. Hoinacki
67 N.E.2d 204 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1946)
Smith v. Pelz
51 N.E.2d 534 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1943)
McGlaughlin v. Pickerel
46 N.E.2d 368 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1943)
Johnson v. Lane
15 N.E.2d 710 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1938)
Sharkey v. Sisson
310 Ill. 98 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
274 Ill. 576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/essary-v-marvel-ill-1916.