Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

145 Ind. 98

Teegarden v. Lewis

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided June 4, 1895

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1895-06-04

<p>Gift. — Special Verdict. — Mental Capacity of Donor. — Practice.—On the issue as to whether a donor had sufficient mental capacity to make a valid gift inter vivos, a finding in a special verdict that the donor was of unsound mind, is a mere conclusion of law and not such a statement of facts as that the court could apply the proper legal conclusions and render judgment, p. 99,</p> <p>Same. — Unsoundness of Mind. — Burden of Proof.— One who challenges the mental capacity of a testator, or donor, has the burden of establishing the absence of the particular capacity in issue, p. 108.</p> <p>Practice. — Fiduciary.—Burden of Proof . — One occupying a fiduciary relation must, when the question is made, establish his right in equity and good conscience to any advantage gained by him from or through his principal, or his principal’s business, p. 118.</p> <p>Same. — Parent and Child. — Presumption of Fraud. — Onus of Proof . —The relation of parent and child, as to presumption of fraud and the onus of proof to rebut the same, in business transactions between them, does not stand upon the same footing as the relation of trustee and cestui que trust, guardian and ward and the like relations. p. 116.</p>

Relies on Willett v. Porter · Fiscus v. Turner · Schuff v. Ransom

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed in part and Reversed in part · Decided 1895-06-04

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably 163 Ind. App. 201 - Collins v. Dunifon (1975), First Farmers Bank & Trust Co. v. Whorley (2008)

3 federal appellate · 65 state decisions

1701895190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Dissenting Opinion.

Howard, C. J.

¶2— I do not think that it was necessary for the jury, in addition to finding that the decedent was of unsound mind, to find anything further on this issue.

¶3When a person has been found to be of unsound mind, the law infers that he is incapable of transacting business. Section 2724, R. S. 1S94 (2554,R. S. 1881), provides that every contract, sale or conveyance of any person while of unsound mind shall be void; and section 2726, R. S. 1894 (section 2556, R. S. 1881), of the same statute, excepts persons, of unsound mind from, those who may make a valid will. And if a person of unsound mind cannot enter into a valid contract, or make a valid will, it is very clear that he cannot make a valid gift. See Willett v. Porter, 42 Ind. 250; Schuff v. Ransom, 79 Ind. 458; Riggs, Admr., v. American, etc., Society, 84 N. Y. 330.

¶4In Fiscus v. Turner, 125 Ind. 46, an instruction was approved, in which the jury were told, that if a person was so far deprived of reason that he was no longer capable of understanding and acting with discretion in the ordinary affairs of life, he was insane within the meaning of the law. In other words, that want of capacity to act with discretion in the ordinary affairs of life, is evidence of unsoundness of mind; that unsoundness of mind and an incapacity for the transaction of business are correlative, each implies the other. Unsoundness of mind like drunkenness, is a fact to be found from the evidence.

¶5*119The complaint and the finding, in this particular case, very closely follow the statute. Sections 2715, 2716, R. S. 1894 (2545 and 2546, R. S. 1881). The statement or complaint required by the statute to be made, is, “that any inhabitant of such county is a person of unsound mind and incapable of managing his own estate.” A guardian is to be appointed, “if such jury shall find that such inhabitant is a person of unsound mind.” The finding of unsoundness of mind simply, is sufficiently responsive to the complaint.

¶6Believing that the verdict was sufficient, I must dissent from the conclusion reached by the court.

/145/ind/98 · .json · Public domain