Finch v. Goldstein

126 Misc. 469
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 15, 1926
StatusPublished

This text of 126 Misc. 469 (Finch v. Goldstein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Finch v. Goldstein, 126 Misc. 469 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1926).

Opinion

Nichols, J.

September 16, 1920, one Howard Finch, a resident of Greene county, was duly committed to the Hudson River State Hospital at Poughkeepsie as an insane person, upon the petition of Winnie Finch, one of the plaintiffs and a brother of said Howard Finch. One Ambrose Jones was attorney for Winnie Finch in that proceeding and was also the notary public who took the acknowledgment to said petition. for the commitment of said [470]*470Howard Finch and was also the attorney for said Winnie Finch in procuring the claimed execution of the deed in question. The plaintiff Elsie Finch is the mother of said Howard Finch, and the said Winnie Finch and Elsie Finch comprise the only heirs at law and next of kin of said Howard Finch who is a widower and has no children.

The said Howard Finch at the time of his commitment to said hospital was suffering from paresis and has remained an inmate of said hospital ever since his commitment. The testimony of Doctor Thompson, one of the physicians at said hospital, who has had the care of said Howard Finch, was that on no day since said Howard Finch was received at the hospital has he had sufficient capacity to understand the nature of any legal documents whatever. No committee of the person and estate of the said Howard Finch was ever appointed until April 4, 1925, when such a committee was appointed by the Supreme Court pursuant to the provisions of section 1374 of the Civil Practice Act without any inquisition being had.

Howard Finch had been devised a farm of 237 acres of land in the town of Cairo, Greene county, by his father previous to his commitment to said hospital, which farm was subject to his mother’s right of dower therein. Title was vested in him and remained in him until June 13, 1921, on which date one Ike Cooper, a real estate broker, in company with his attorney, one Orliff T. Heath, and the defendant called upon Winnie Finch and negotiated with him for the purchase of said farm. Defendant Goldstein was informed that Howard Finch, the owner, was insane and confined in the State hospital at Poughkeepsie. An agreement for the purchase of said farm was then made wherein the parties of the first part are named as follows: “ Elsie Finch and Winnie Finch, as the personal representatives and next of kin of Howard W. Finch, an alleged incompetent person, of Cairo, Greene County, N. Y.,” parties of the first part, and this defendant, David Goldstein, was named as party of the second part. Goldstein paid a deposit of $500 at the time of the execution of said contract, agreed to pay $4,250 on the delivery of the deed to said farm and to give a bond and mortgage of $9,000 on said premises for the balance of the purchase money. Besides said real property said contract covered some personal property on the premises. This contract contained three clauses as follows: “ This contract is made under the express agreement that the parties of the first part shall institute proceedings to sell said premises as early as possible and this sale is made subject to the order of the court having jurisdiction over the person and property of the said Howard Finch an alleged [471]*471incompetent person.” The 2d clause referred to reads as follows: “ This sale is made through the agency of Ike Cooper and his commission shall be five per cent of the purchase price which commission shall be paid by the parties of the first part.” The 3d mentioned clause reads as follows: “ The said parties of the first part on receiving such payment at the time and in the manner above mentioned shall at their own proper cost and expense execute, acknowledge and deliver or cause to be executed, acknowledged and delivered to the said party of the second part or to his assigns a proper deed to be executed by the committee to be appointed for the said Howard Finch,” etc. No time was fixed in said contract as the date for closing title.

Upon the trial Heath was a witness and denied that he had ever been employed by the defendant and paid by the defendant. The defendant insisted that he had employed Heath as his attorney. Heath testified that on the next day after the execution of the contract he had a conversation with the defendant and that defendant said that he was very anxious to get into possession of the property as the summer boarding season was approaching and wanted to know in effect how soon he could obtain title to said premises; and Heath advised defendant that a deed from said lunatic, Elsie Finch, his mother, and Winnie Finch, his brother, would give him ample protection. Heath did not state to him that such deed would be a defeasible deed in a suit by said lunatic or his representatives. The defendant agreed to take such a deed. No attempt was made to have a committee of the person and estate of the incompetent appointed or to comply with the terms of said contract with reference thereto. This testimony is not denied by the defendant, although the defendant testified that as soon as the contract was executed he returned to the city of New York and remained there until the time of the closing of title. Heath communicated these facts to Ambrose Jones, and on June 29, 1921, Ambrose Jones and Winnie Finch went to the Hudson River State Hospital at Poughkeepsie where the said lunatic, Howard Finch, was then confined, and said Howard Finch signed his name to said deed in the presence of Jones and said Jones claims to have taken the acknowledgment of the said lunatic on the same day at said hospital, Winnie Finch being present during such proceeding. No order of a judge of a court of record permitting said deed to be executed was procured by said Winnie Finch or Ambrose Jones. No medical superintendent or assistant or officer in charge of the lunatic was present at the time of the claimed execution of said deed. In fact both Jones and Winnie Finch conceded on the trial that none of the hospital authorities [472]*472knew of the claimed execution of said deed. On the same day Winnie Finch and Elsie Finch executed said deed and acknowledged same before said Jones. The defendant was then notified by said Heath to come to Catskill and close title, which he did on June t 30, 1921, paying $4,250 in cash and giving a bond and mortgage for $9,000 to secure the balance of the purchase money. Nothing was said by any one of the manner in which said lunatic was claimed to have executed said deed. The defendant left said deed with Heath who caused same to be recorded on July 2, 1921, and Heath retained possession thereof until about the month of June, 1924, when the defendant, having a tentative purchaser for said farm, sent to Heath for said deed, and the proposed purchaser on discovering that the deed, being one given by a lunatic, was to say the least a defeasible deed, refused to complete the purchase. Goldstein, who had paid the interest on the mortgage according to the terms thereof, refused to make further payments and this action in foreclosure was commenced.

The deed of the lunatic, if it had been legally executed, was voidable at the election of said lunatic upon recovering his reason. The defendant could not avoid the deed for that reason where the deed was executed before office found. (Blinn v. Schwarz, 177 N. Y. 252; Smith v. Ryan, 191 id. 452.)

On April 5, 1911, the State Hospital Commission adopted general order No. 10, which contained among other things, the following:

“ (b) No insane person shall be permitted to sign any bill, check, draft or other evidence of indebtedness or to .

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

Related

Blinn v. . Schwarz
69 N.E. 542 (New York Court of Appeals, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
126 Misc. 469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finch-v-goldstein-nysupct-1926.