ARK.] BILYEU V. WOOD. 1181 BILYEU V. WOOD. Opinion delivered December 21, 1925. 1. APPEAL AND ERROR—CONCLUSIVENESS OF CHANCELLOO FINDINGS:— Chancery cases are tried de novo on appeal, and findings of fact are allowed to stand, unless they . are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. 2. DEEDS—et:MENTAL INCAPACITY.—To invalidate a deed r on 'the ground of the grantor's mental incapacity; the proof muA shOw that -the grantor was incapacitated to understand and Comprehend ; the nature and: consequences of , his act. ; • 3. DI■EDS—MENTAL INCAPACITY.—In a suit to. cancell,a deed ion , Ole ground of the grantor's ,mental incapacity,..a. finding, that , thr grantor was not mentally incapable keld sustained by th' e ein-dence. 4. DEEDS--MENTAL INCAPACITY—BURDEN OF Prioon—I -Ifl . . a' suit "to 'Ve • t aside a deed on the ground of the grantor's mental 'incapacity, the burden iS on plaintiff tO prove mental: incoMpeteficy.., ..t. Appeal froni Ouachita 61ancery COUR, First DO I-sion ; 'J. Y. &evens, OhancellOr ; affirmed. STATEMENT BY' THE COURT. ..; t, Deloris Bilyeu brought this ;suit -in equity. against N. N. Wood and others to 'cancel a deed ,on the ground that it . was executed while she was a minor, and; also that she was mentally incompetent.
1182 BILYEU V. WOOD. [169 Mattie Burris died, leaving surViving her •wo children, Lola, aged four, and Deloris, an infant. Mrs. Ida Bell, a sister of Mattie Burris, took the children and reared them as a part of her own family in Ouachita County, Ark. John Bell, her husband, had mortgaged a part . of his land to M. P. Watts and T. J. Watts, who were merchants at Camden, Ark_ After the death of her husband Mrs. Bell entered into negotiations witb M. P. Watts and T. J. Watts to sell them 160 acres of land belonging to her husband's estate, and 240 acres belonging to her nieces,.Lola and Deloris Burris. •Her husband's estate owed T. J. Watts and M., P. Watts $2,000, which was paid, and the balance of the purchase price and the sum of $1,300 was paid to Mrs. Ida Bell. At the time the sale was made, Lola was 91 years old and Deloris was 16. The disabilities of Deloris as a minor were removed for the express purpose of enabling her to convey the land to M. P. Watts and T. J. Watts. Mrs. Ida Bell raised the girls *until they were groWn. Lola Burris was sent to A busineSs college at Little Rock, and is working in Little Rock at the present time. She is now 25 years of age, .and recognizes that .she has conveyed all of her interest in said land,by the deed in question. Deloris went through the. eig , hth grade at school, and Mrs. Bell offered to send her to a business College, but she refused to go. She afterwards Married a man named Bilyeu, and had two thildren by hini; one'of whom is now living. On the 18th day of May, 1922, Deloris Bilyeu executed a quitclaim deed to said land to M. P. Watts and T. J. Watts for a nominal consideration. This was done for the purpose of clearing the title of M. P. and T. J. Watts.. The order of the probate court by which the disabilities of Deloris Burris as a minor were removed for the Purpose of executing a deed to the land in question did not show that the minor was a resident of Ouachita Connty where the order was made, and for that , reasOn the order declaring the removal of her disabilities was void within the rule laid down in Hindman v. O'Connor, 54 Ark. 627.
ARE.] BILYEU v. WOOD. 1183 The deposition of Deloris Bilyeu was taken in 1922, and at that time she said she was 19 years of age. According to her testimony, .she signed the quitclaim deed to T. J. and• M. P. Watts. at ;the instance of her aunt,: Mrs. Ida. BelL She did not know that she was 'signing a deed, and supposed that . she was signing.: a paper to show where she lived in 1918, r at the time the order of the probate court removing her disabilities as a minor was made. She did not read, the: deed over, and signed it because of :the love and confidence she had . in her aunt who had raised her. On her cross-examination she stated that she was in:the seventh, and eighth grades at school when she quit, and •then. Was studying spelling, grammar, arithmetic, geography and history. 'She was recalled as •a witness, and examined as to her, mental eapacity. She could not recollect, or. did not ,know, but few of the prominent men in the current history of the United States. .She said she did not know how many states were in the United . States, or, who was. the first president of tbe United States.. She had heard of Wood-row Wilson but said that she did not know who he was. G. S. Nfurphy was also a witness: as to her mental condition. According to his testimony, her mental condition was not very good, and she had the mind of a e.hild about seven or eight years: old., The witness has known Deloris all of her life, and based his opinion oh hearing her talk and observing her manner. J. A. Bilyeu, her father-in-law, was also a witness as to her mental condition. According: to his testimony, her mind bad not developed more than that of a child seven or eight years of age., His opinion was based upon seeing her daily since her marriage to his . son.: :They lived with him about five months after his son married Deloris. Torn Goodwin had known her all of her life, and aocording to -his testimony she talked more like a child about ten or twelve years of age than a. grown person. A physician who qualified as an expert, and 'who had had twenty years' experience as a specialist in the treat-
1184 BILYEIJ V. WOOD. [169 ment of nervous•and mental•diseases, examined het and testified that she had the mind of a child seven; •eight or nine years old. He gave her what is known as the Binet-Simon test to determine her mental 'age. He described the test niinntelyi and g -aid-that he was positive' that her mind' was only deVelOped to about the eight and a half years old . period. ! • Mrs.Ida Bell was a witness for the defendants on the question . 'of the. mental 'condition . of• the plaintiff. AcCording to her testimony, Mt.. Watts told her, that the teCetd Tlid .. not show that Delaris lived in Ou•achita County: at -the time the probate . court made an order renieving lei disabilities : . as• a minor in• 1918. Watts wanted Deloris to sign a' quitclaim deed to the land in 'order to make his title good. She told Deloris that this Was for the . purpo g e of correcting the title,' and..Deloris teadily signed it. • The Mother of Deloris died hi 1902, and• Mrs; . Bell . immediately took her two childien, and rai§edthent 1 as a.part of het own family. Mrs. Bell had six' children in : all, and testified that Deloris had just as good a'mind as any of them. She went•through the ninth grade in' school, 'and was just as smart as any of the chil-dten., ' Sha'quif school because she wanted to marry. 0. C. Hays testified-that he knew Deloris Bilyeu well and that he never saW anything wrong with her .mind. She was. just like the rest. ofthe girls that he knew. A daughter of Mrs.• Bell also te g tified that there was nothing wrong with her Mind, and that she had as good a mind as any of Mrs. Bell's children. •A . young lady who had taught her said that she never knew "ot•theard of anything being wrong with the mind of 'the plaintiff. • • • 'Laney, a 'schoOl teachet, also testified that he never noticed anything wrong with the plaintiff mentally, 'and that she' waS a normal girt. He said that she was not' very apt . to learn' at school, but that he did not consider there . was anything . wrong with her mind k physician who met the plaintiff when he was called to attend . her : mother-in-law, and who afterwards
ARK.] BILYETI v. WOOD. 1185 attended her in childbirth, testified as to her mental condition. He said that, while he had never made an examination of her as to her mental . condition, he had seen and talked with her a great • many times, and did not observe any defect in her mind.. He' talked with her frequently, and she appeared. absolutely normal to him. The chancellor. found the issues of fact in favor of the defendants,.and it was decreed that the cmnplaint of the plaintiff be dismissed for want of equity. . •• To reverse that decree, the: plaintiff has duly prosecuted this . ,appeal.• Martin ,ce. Martin and J. W. Warren, for appellant. • J. T. Sifford,.J. E. Gaughan, E. E. Godwia and T. J. Gaughan, for a.ppellee. . , . . . HART, J., (after stating the facts). • On:appeal 'chancery cases are, tHed de novo, and the findings of . fact by the chancery court are allowed to stand unless .they. are ° clearly against the preponderance of the evidence...Legcli v.. Smith, 130 Ark. 465. • Tlo invalidate a deed on the ground of the grantor's mental incapacity, the proof , must show that the grantor . . was incapacitated •from intelligently comprehending and acting upon the,affair:out of which the transaction grew, and that he did .not intelligently understand and comprehend 'the nature and consequences of his act. In other words, the mental capacity at- the time of signing a deed sufficient to comprehend the nature of the transaction the Standard fixed by the law for determining the mental competency . of the person signing . the. deed . Kelly's Heirs v. McGuire, 15 Ark...555; Pulaski County T.- Hill, 97 Ark. 450 . ;'MeEvoy v. Tucker, 115 Ark. 430 ; and Reaves v. Davidson, 129 Ark. 88. . ,,• • .Tested.by the principles of law announced above, it can not be said that the• chancellor erred in finding the facts to he against the plaintiff. Mrs., Bell, the aunt of the plaintiff and her: sister, took them when their .mother died; and raised and .educated them as a part ef her own.family. When her has:- band died Mrs. Bell formed the idea of selling, her. bus-
1186 BILYEU v. WOOD. [169 band's land together with the land which her nieces had inherited from their mother for the purpose of getting out of debt, and moving to another place. The land of the minors was of but little value.. The timber had been cut off of it, and none of it was in cultivation. All the lands were sold for $7.50 per acre, but the evidence shows that the part of the lands which belonged to the estate of the husband of Mrs. Bell was much more valuable. The price paid for the lands was an adequate one, and the sale was void as to the plaintiff only because the . order removing her disabilities as a minor did not state that she was a resident of the county in which the order was made. To correct' this defect in the title, the quitclaim deed in question was executed. The land became more valuable on account of the discovery of oil in the vicinity, and the plaintiff seeks to set aside the quitclaim deed on the ground that she sighed it on account of the love and confidence . she had in Mrs. Bell, and on the further ground that she was not mentally competent to sign a deed. She states that she did not know that she was signing a' deed. On the other hand, M i n. Bell and Watts testified that she knew she was signing a quitclaim deed for the purpose of curing a defect in' the title of Watts. In other words, they explained to her that the . • probate' 'order removing her • disabilities as a minor was void' because it did not state that she was a resident of 'the comity in which it was made.. The chancellor made an express finding of fact in favor of the defendants on this phase of the case, and it can not be said that his finding is against the weight of the evidence so that it must be set aside on appeal. The question which has given . us the most concern is whether or not the plaintiff was mentally competent tO execute the quitclaim deed in question. According to the testimony of a specialist in mental diseases, her mind had never developed beyond the mind of a child eight and a half or nine years old, and consequently she did not understand the nature of her act when she signed the quitclaim deed. His testimony is corroborated by
ARK.] BILYEIT V. WOOD. 1187 that of her father-in-la*, and two other witnesses who knew her well. On the other hand a physician who attended her in childbirth, and who knew her very well, testified that while he did not make any mental examination of the plaintiff, he talked with her frequently, and she appeared absolutely normal to him He said that he had seen her a great many times and talked with her, and did not see any defect in her mind. Mrs. Bell, who raised the plaintiff, and one of her children both testified tbat the plaintiff had a normal mind, and that her mental condition was as good as that of any other of the children. Several other witnesses who knew her well also testified that her mental condition appeared to be normal. The undisputed evidence shows that in the first instance the land was sold for an adequate price. The sister of the plaintiff, who was of lawful age and signed the deed, refused to take any part in trying to set it aside. It is true that she was not examined as to the mental condition of the plaintiff ; but it must be remembered that the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff to show that she was mentally incompetent to execute the deed. The fact that the sister refused to have anything to do with setting aside the deed is a circumstance tend, ing to show that she did not believe that there was any undue influence used in procuring it, or that the plaintiff was mentally incompetent when she signed it. She testified in positive terms that she had conveyed to Watts her interest in the land, and had no sort of right to invallidate the deed. This tended ito show that she . believed the consideration was an adequate one, and that the original transaction was free of fraud. The result of our views is that, in the application of the rules• s of law declared above to the facts of the case, it can not be said that the decree of the chancellor was wrong, and it will be affirmed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.