13 Wis. 425 | Wis. | 1861
By the Court,
This was an-action to foreclose a mortgage given by tbe respondent to secure a debt owed by bis son. Tbe defense is that be was insane at tbe time it was executed. And tbe only question in tbe case is, whether this defense was established by tbe evidence. Tbe court below found that it was; and although this finding was assailed with much force on tbe argument in this court, yet we have concluded that upon tbe evidence as a whole we cannot disturb it. We do not deem it necessary to state in detail tbe impressions made upon us by tbe testimony of each witness, but will refer generally to tbe considerations that have led us to this conclusion. In tbe first place it was admitted that tbe respondent was shown to have been insane at intervals, for many years. Of this there can be no question. It appears from tbe testimony of bis friends and neighbors, who bad all observed tbe unsoundness of bis mind, so that it was a fact well understood among them. It appears also from tbe same testimony, that one of tbe prevailing symptoms of tbe disease was a delusion in respect to bis wealth, and an inordinate disposition to mate bargains and convey away bis property. But while conceding this, tbe appellant’s counsel claimed that it also appeared that tbe respondent bad lucid intervals, and that this mortgage was executed in one of them.
It is true that tbe witnesses describe bis insanity as existing by “ fits ” and “ spellsbut they testify that these “spells” lasted sometimes two, sometimes four, and some
This mortgage was executed on tbe 1st of July, 1858. It must be admitted that tbe testimony of tbe appellant himself, who never saw tbe respondent until be came to Madison to live with bis son, a few weeks before tbe execution of tbe mortgage; of Mr. Eirmin, who drew tbe papers, and saw him only during one or two interviews at bis office, while there for the purpose of executing them; and that of Mr. Mara-tón and Kate Babcock, though much of it is of a mere negative character, would tend to show that tbe respondent was at that time sane. But from tbe very nature of tbe inquiry, evidence of this character must be, to a great degree, inconclusive and unsatisfactory to tbe mind. Wbeb it is conceded that but a few weeks before, tbe brain of the respondent was oppressed by this subtle disease ; that it had been so oppressed, with intervals of greater or less degrees of violence, for years; that tbe same difficulty manifested itself afterwards during tbe same year and the next; and when it is remembered that the disease often exists without being detected, even by tbe intelligent and tbe observing, it is
Our conclusion derives some support from the testimony of the defendant himself. It seems to be conceded that he was sane at the time it was taken, and he says he has no recollection whatever of having executed this mortgage. It appears that a failure to remember what took place during his insanity, had been previously noticed by the witness Tuttle.
We think it also derives some support from the nature of the act itself. He was a man of limited means, having no
For these reasons, without noticing more particularly the items of evidence relied on as indicating sanity, we think the judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed, with costs.