Johnson's Committee v. Mitchell

142 S.W. 675, 146 Ky. 382, 1912 Ky. LEXIS 63
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedJanuary 24, 1912
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 142 S.W. 675 (Johnson's Committee v. Mitchell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Johnson's Committee v. Mitchell, 142 S.W. 675, 146 Ky. 382, 1912 Ky. LEXIS 63 (Ky. Ct. App. 1912).

Opinion

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Miller

Affirming.

On April 16th, 1890, James K. Johnson, of Pike County, was.adjudged to be a person of unsound mind and a lunatic, in the Pike County Court, and was sent to the asylum at Lexington, Ky., for treatment. Johnson liad a family consisting of a wife and five children, and he then owned about 800 acres of land in Pike County. He remained in the asylum at Lexington until August, 1895, when he was discharged and returned to his home in Pike County, without any inquest having been held to determine his sanity.

[383]*383Subsequently, on January 30,1897, Johnson conveyed a portion of his land to Timothy Mullins, and Timothy Mullins conveyed a portion of same to Charles Mullins and Floyd Mullins.

On February 9, 1897, Johnson deeded a portion of his land to the appellee, Gilbert Looney, who in turn conveyed the same to J ames Keen. Keen conveyed said land to J. M. Sanders; J. M. Sanders conveyed a part of said portion to L. D. Sanders, and J. M. and L. D. Sanders conveyed this original portion to Bud Castle, the present owner. .

Again, on October 15, 1897, Johnson conveyed another portion of this land to James Taclcett, who in turn conveyed the same to J. M. Sanders. The latter conveyed a part, of this portion to L. D. Sanders, and L. D. Sanders and J. M. Sanders conveyed it to Bud Castle, the present owner.

On September 3, 1900, Johnson conveyed another portion of this land to Geo. W. Mitchell, and he conveyed the same to Keed S. Johnson. Reed S. Johnson conveyed said land to J. M. Sanders; Sanders conveyed it to Andy Sanders, and Andy Sanders deeded the same to A. J. Stewart, the present owner. In this last named conveyance by Mitchell, he retained the coál and minerals in the land, and subsequently «oíd and conveyed said coal and minerals on this portion of the land to the Northern Coal & Coke Company.

' On January 21, 1901, Johnson conveyed another portion of this land to Sylvester Johnson, who conveyed the same to Daniel Newsom. Newsom conveyed it to Spurlock Coleman, the present owner.

On March 3, 1903, Johnson sold and conveyed the coal, minerals and other mining rights and privileges in another portion of this land to the Northern Coal & Coke Co., the present owner.

On January 1,1908, Reed S. Johnson, a son of James K. Johnson, was, upon his own motion, appointed by the Pike County Court as the committee for James K. Johnson. This appointment was made by virtue of the original finding of lunacy in 1890, and without any additional inquiry into James K. Johnson’s mental condition. Immediately after his appointment, Reed S. Johnson, as committee, brought these six suits against the vendees and the subsequent vendees of said James K. Johnson, including the present owners, for the purpose of setting aside said conveyances, upon the ground that James K. [384]*384Johnson did not have sufficient mental capacity to make any of said cpnveyances, and that he yet was of nnsonnd mind. The defendants answered, denying Johnson’s incapacity and nnsonndness of mind at the time he made, the conveyances. The six suits were consolidated and heard as a single case, and upon the hearing it was dismissed ; and from that judgment the plaintiff prosecutes this, appeal.

The law governing the case is well stated in Logan v. Vanarsdall, 27 Ky. Law Rep., 822, which was a case quite similar in character to the case at bar, and in which this court said:

“We do not agree with the contention of appellants, that the deed from James P. Terhune to Vanarsdall was void. It has time and again been held by this court that the contract of a person of unsound mind, like that of an infant, is not void, but voidable only. (Arnett’s Committee v. Owens, 23 Ky. Law Rep., 1410; Breckinridge’s Heirs v. Ormsby, 1 J. J. M., 236.)
“Assuming it to be true, as averred in the petition and as appears from the copy of the inquest of lunacy filed as an exhibit, that James P. Terhune was properly adjudged to be a person of unsound mind, that fact, though conclusive evidence that such was his condition at the time of the inquest, is only prima facie evidence of his condition at the time of the sale and conveyance to Vanarsdall or any subsequent period. Being a mere presumption it may be repelled by oral testimony. (Clark’s Exor. v. Trail’s Admrs., 1 Met., 35.)
“In the case at bar the sale and conveyance of the. land by Terhune to Vanarsdall was made about two years-after the time he was adjudged to be of unsound mind. Notwithstanding his-mental unsoundness at the time of the inquest, he may have been of sound mind and altogether capable of contracting when he sold and conveyed the land to Vanarsdall, but this would have to be shown by proof. We can not anticipate what defense will be presented by the answer, but will say in passing that though it may appear that Terhune was of unsound mind at the time of the conveyance to Vanarsdall, that fact can not divest the latter’s grantee, or the subsequent purchasers, of title to the land, unless they had, at the time ofithe conveyance to them respectively, notice. that Terhune was of unsound mind at the time he. sold and conveyed the land to Vanarsdall. (Arnett’s Committee v. Owens, 23 Ky. Law Rep., 1410.) ”

[385]*385The appellees do not contend that they were ignorant of the former nnsoundness of mind on the part of James K. Johnson during the time he was confined in the asylum, but they insist that he had been restored to his right mind, and was of disposing capacity at the time he made these several deeds between 1897 and 1903. We have before us, therefore, a simple question of fact, with the burden of proof upon the appellees, to show that Johnson had sufficient mental capacity to make the conveyances at the several times he made them. The case presents, in some respects, an anomalous, aspect, in view of the fact that Eeed S. Johnson and Sylvester Johnson, sons of James K. Johnson, were the grantees in two of these conveyances which Eeed S. Johnson, as committee, is now attacking. And in the deed to the Northern Coal & Coke Co., Reed S. Johnson and his wife joined his father as grantors.

A brief review of the evidence is sufficient to show that it fully sustains the ruling of the chancellor in dismissing the action. James K. Johnson never had much brightness of mind, but was below the average in ability,according to the testimony of Dr. Clarke, the superintendent of the asylum, and who had charge of him. To sustain his ca-.se, the appellant took the depositions of eight witnesses, including those of Dr. Clarke and Eeed S. Johnson, the committee. Pickelsimer, the notary who took his acknowledgment in September, 1900, says Johnson was then of weak mind, although Pickelsimer did not hesitate to take and certify to the acknowledgment. McCown, who had known Johnson for fifteen years or more, says his mind appeared to be bad, from his talk. Looney says Johnson’s mind seemed to be scattering; while Case said Johnson indulged in strange talk. Sylvester Johnson, the son, says his father’s mind was not very good; that he had scars on his fingers, and that he claimed great things were due to that fact, or had been done by reason of the scars; and concerning the deed his father made to- him in January, 1901, Sylvester says his father’s mind was then about the same as it had been before.

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

Related

Sumpter v. Flanery
357 S.W.2d 324 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1962)
Burris v. Burris
341 S.W.2d 265 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1960)
Sharp v. Commonwealth
215 S.W.2d 983 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1948)
National Life Ins. v. Jayne
132 F.2d 358 (Tenth Circuit, 1942)
Farmers Bank & Trust Co. v. Public Service Co.
13 F. Supp. 548 (W.D. Kentucky, 1936)
Kuehmsted v. Turnwall
155 So. 847 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1934)
Cummins' Adm'r v. Walker's Committee
66 S.W.2d 48 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1933)
Begley v. Holliday's Committee
58 S.W.2d 654 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1933)
Waddy v. Grimes
153 S.E. 807 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1930)
Davenport v. Jenkins' Committee
283 S.W. 1044 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1926)
Fugate v. Walker
265 S.W. 331 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1924)
Cash v. Bank of Lowes
245 S.W. 137 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1922)
Williamson v. Lowe
241 S.W. 333 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1922)
Casebier v. Casebier
236 S.W. 966 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1921)
Heirs of Cabrera v. Aponte
29 P.R. 874 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1921)
Sucesión Cabrera v. Aponte
29 P.R. Dec. 938 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1921)
Jones v. Schaffner
193 Iowa 1262 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1920)
Phillips v. Murphy & Gary
218 S.W. 250 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1920)
Rath's Committee v. Smith
202 S.W. 501 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1918)
Clay v. Clay's Committee
200 S.W. 934 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
142 S.W. 675, 146 Ky. 382, 1912 Ky. LEXIS 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnsons-committee-v-mitchell-kyctapp-1912.