Stewart v. Curtis
Stewart v. Curtis
Opinion of the Court
Edwin M. Curtis, as the guardian of Marietta Curtis, an insane person, filed the bill in this cause to set aside a deed made by said Marietta Curtis to
The deed was made August 18, 1887. The bill was filed January 30, 1888. Marietta died February 10, 1888. Decree was entered dismissing the bill after a hearing upon pleadings and proofs.
The land involved comprises about 50 acres, and was at the time wbrth about $1,500. There was a house upon it, in which Marietta and her mother had lived for many years prior to her mother’s death, which occurred in March, 1887. She was never married, and evidently was a lady of unusually modest and retiring disposition. Upon her mainly had fallen the care and support of her aged mother. She had several brothers and sisters, of whom one, James Curtis, lived near by, and with whom Marietta and her mother lived during the winter previous to the mother’s death, during which time the defendants occupied Marietta’s house. Upon the death of her mother she went to visit her brothers and sisters in Shiawassee county. After a visit of some two months she returned to the house of her brother James, and soon went to keeping house in her old home. Her relatives invited her to live with them, but she declined, preferring to live in her old home; being evidently attached thereto by her residence of many years. James Curtis and his wife assisted her in fixing up the house, where she lived for a while alone. She was then 65 years of age, and her health had not been very good. There is no claim on the part
Upon the delivery of this deed the defendants executed a life-lease of the premises to Marietta, in which they covenanted to furnish her a home and support her during her life. The relations between Herman and his aunt had always been friendly. At the time of the execution of these papers he was carrying on a farm of 120 acres. He gave that up as soon as practicable, and took charge of the premises, in question. She took two rooms, which were those of her choice, which she continued to occupy until she was taken away by her brother Edwin M. Ourtis. The death of Marietta has sealed the mouth of Herman as to all that took place between him and her. The record is utterly barren of any evidence tending to show any false or fraudulent representations made by Herman as an inducement to the making of the deed.
The evidence fails to show that the defendants were guilty of cruel treatment towards her, or that they failed to comply with their agreement. She lived and ate at the same table with them. After her mind had become deranged, and James Curtis had written to his brother and sisters on December 7 that she was worse, her brother and sister came to Herman’s house, and all the evidence of any cruel treatment comes from them. On the contrary, James Curtis and his wife, who lived close by, Mr. and Mrs. Scott, two near neighbors, and the defendant Lottie L. Ourtis, give testimony to the contrary, which we think entirely breaks the force of the testimony of this brother and sister, who are intensely interested and prejudiced. So intense was -Edwin’s feeling that he stated that he would make it cost Herman all the land was worth before he got done with him.
The scrivener who drew the papers was one Bert C. Preston, whom Herman went after and brought to the house. He testifies that on,his arrival he told Marietta that Herman had brought him to draw some papers for her, to which she replied, “Yes.” He then said: “Herman says you want me to draw a deed from you to him of your farm, and take a life-lease back. Is that correct?” She replied that that was what she wanted. There were present at this time Herman, his wife, and mother, Mrs. James Curtis. After the papers were drawn, Mr. Preston says he read them over carefully to them all, in the presence of them all. He then asked Marietta if she understood their full meaning, and if they were drawn just as she wanted them. She answered that she understood them, and that they were drawn just as she wanted them. The papers were then both executed. He further testified that she appeared the same as other women, only a little more silent, timid, and retiring than most women. On cross-examination, this witness testified that Herman told him, on their way to the house, that Marietta was naturally a timid woman, and that when he came into her presence he hoped he would be plain' and simple in his manners, because if he made unnecessary show, or ostentatious appearance, it might confuse her; that she was inclined to be nervous at times; that she was feeling first rate that day, and on that account he expected they would do the business without any difficulty with her, without frightening her, or something like that. “He might have said 'fretting.' I can't remember the" word he used, but that was the impression I got.” He further said he was very particular to find out that she understood the full purport of the papers.
The decree is affirmed, with costs.-
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Alfred Stewart, Administrator, etc. v. Herman E. Curtis and Lottie L. Curtis
- Status
- Published