National Bank of Arkansas v. Feibelman

19 S.W.2d 1015, 179 Ark. 1162, 1929 Ark. LEXIS 190
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedJune 24, 1929
StatusPublished

This text of 19 S.W.2d 1015 (National Bank of Arkansas v. Feibelman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
National Bank of Arkansas v. Feibelman, 19 S.W.2d 1015, 179 Ark. 1162, 1929 Ark. LEXIS 190 (Ark. 1929).

Opinion

Smith, J.

This appeal arises out of the efforts of nine creditors of Adolph Feibelman to enforce their demands against him. It will be unnecessary to set out how the various cases arose and were finally consolidated, as the controlling and decisive question in all of them is that of Feibelman’s sanity. If he is in fact sane, or was sane when the demands were incurred, the creditors are entitled to have the relief which they pray, and the court from which this appeal comes need only take such action as will accomplish that result.

More than one hundred witnesses testified on the question of Feibelman’s sanity, and we have before us a record of over twelve hundred pages, and numerous briefs of counsel have abstracted and discussed this testimony, yet tbe answer to a single question will dispose of tbe entire litigation, and that is, was Feibelman sane when be incurred tbe indebtedness wbiob bis creditors seek to collect?

Tbe number of witnesses on each side is about equal, but tbe preponderance of tbe expert testimony is that Feibelman was insane when these demands were incurred. Tbe chancellor accepted this view, and entered a decree according with it, and this decree must be affirmed unless we can say that the finding is against tbe preponderance of the evidence.

It was the opinion of tbe medical experts that Feibel-man bad suffered from a form of insanity which was designated as manic depressive psychosis, 'and it was agreed by all tbe experts that an early symptom of this disease of tbe mind is that of an increased activity, physical and mental, on tbe part of tbe patient, with 'an exaggerated sense of importance and 'self-esteem, but these symptoms disappear as tbe disease progresses, and tbe feeling of exultation gives way to one of depression, and tbe patient becomes sullen, morose, lethargic, and has suicidal tendencies. These conditions result in the loss of control of the mental processes, and the patient who has them is insane.

Tbe first of tbe experts who- treated Feibelman professionally was a Doctor Schwab, who saw Feibelman for tbe first time on January 11, 1927, and treated him until February 4, 1927, during five days of which time Feibel-man was in a hospital in St. Louis, and during thei remainder of tbe time Feibelman was an office patient.

It would be almost interminable to set out the testimony seeking to prove and disprove that Feibelman was affected with this form of insanity. Many idiosyncrasies and peculiarities of tbe man were detailed which might be found in many men about whose sanity no question existed, if their lives were scrutinized as Feibelman’s has been, but it is very earnestly insisted that the testimony shows far more than this, and that Feibelman’s conduct can be accounted for on the hypothesis only that he was an insane man.

Prior to 1926 Feibelman had been an aggressive and successful business man, but ivith the beginning of that year he closed out bis mercantile business, and gave increased attention to his farming interests and to advancing money to others engaged in farming, and to buying and selling icotton, and to looting after his real estate holdings in the town of Eudora, where he resided. He carried over from 1925 a large quantity of cotton, and this, with his new ventures, required the use of a large amount of money. He was thought to be worth from $150,000 to $200,000, and his financial .statement showed that he was, and his credit was good. He had never had any difficulty borrowing money. During' 1925 he had been treated for both diabetes and pneumonia, but had apparently recovered in 1926, and about this time began the alleged exaggerated activity and improvident enlargement of his business and the orgy of spending money, which the experts testified were the acts of an insane man and the primary manifestations of the disease of maniac depressive psychosis.

In the hypothetical question to the experts, those who had seen Feibelman or had treated him professionally were ashed, after taking into account their own observations of him, to assume as true the following facts: About January 1, 1926, a marked change occurred in Feibelman’s habits and conduct; he “engaged in many lines of activity and in business ventures of very unsound and impractical character, foreign to his customs and habits of a lifetime;” that he “started numerous business ventures and undertakings which were far beyond his capital and capacity, and in some instances commenced things which he never even attempted to complete,” so that, “in the course of but a few months his credit was exhausted, and he owed large sums of money which he could not pay, all resulting from a course of indiscriminate borrowing and buying at high prices things he did not need;” that, “with one or two automobiles of the family at his disposal, he bought an expensive oar for his individual nse, with which he took long and extended trips all over the country in his orgy of buying and borrowing, not advising his family of his whereabouts for days;’'’ that, after about nine months, “he sanie into a state of great depression and despair, and walked the streets aimlessly, with bowed head, and passed friends of long standing without speaking to them, and would cry and moan without apparent cause, and required petting to induce him to attend meals and perform the ordinary household practices, and otherwise manifested a complete reversal of his former life and habits.”

In answer to this question, five physicians, who had qualified as insanity experts, testified that the man described was insane, and incapable of transacting business. A single insanity expert expressed the contrary opinion, that the man was sane.

We cannot review the testimony, although we have carefully considered it, and we have concluded that the picture of Feibelman is overdrawn to the extent that an opinion based upon it assumes facts as true which the testimony does not establish.

The National Bank of Arkansas, of Pine Bluff, became-Feibelman’s principal creditor, and its business relations with him commenced February 26, 1926, and resulted from the fact that a Mr. McLeod, who was .then the cashier of the bank, had previously been connected with the First National Bank of Lake Village, as cashier, and with the First National Bank of Eudora as a director, and had known and had transacted business with Feibelman for many years. Feibelman was a customer of the bank at Eudora, and that bank did not have sufficient capital to accommodate Feibelman’s requirements, and the excess line of credit was handled through .the Pine Bluff bank, which was the correspondent of the Eudora bank. Feibelman obtained his first loan from the Pine Bluff bank on February 26, 1926, which was for $5,000, for thirty days, and this loan was paid. On May 19,1926, Feibelman borrowed $11,000, due in ninety days, and on May 24 lie borrowed an additional $5,000, due in ninety-one days. On May 29 lie borrowed $4,000, and on June 18, $7,000, making a total indebtedness of $27,000. These loans were all unsecured, and bore interest at the rate of six per cent, per annum. They were made on the financial statements submitted by Feibelman, the accuracy and .truth of which do not appear to be questioned.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 S.W.2d 1015, 179 Ark. 1162, 1929 Ark. LEXIS 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-bank-of-arkansas-v-feibelman-ark-1929.