Opinion
10-25-1889
LYNCH'S ADM'R v. VANNEMAN
D. J. Pancoast, for complainant. John W. Westcott, for defendant.
Bill for relief.
D. J. Pancoast, for complainant. John W. Westcott, for defendant.
BIRD, V. C. Daniel Lynch, being the owner of 252 acres of land, sold it to his sons Helms and Samuel for $16,380 in January, 1866. They paid therefor by giving two mortgages,—one for $5,000, and one for $11,380. March 15, 1866, Daniel Lynch assigned the $5,000 to the defendant, C. L. Vanneman, who further assigned it in the year 1876. March 6, 1869, Samuel Lynch conveyed his interest to Helms Lynch in the said premises, subject to the said $5,000, and so much as remained due upon the $11,380 mortgage. At the period last named, the defendant, Charles L. Vanneman, who was brother-in-law to Daniel Lynch, advanced to and for the said Helms Lynch $4,730, and took his bond and mortgage upon the said premises therefor, in which his wife joined; but the defendant alleges that he actually paid this money to the said Daniel Lynch on account of the bond, which he understood to be the only security which the said Daniel held for the $11,380, not knowing that he also held a mortgage for that sum. A few days thereafter he advanced $1,000 more to the said Helms for the like purpose, and took his promissory note therefor. This, too, he alleges he paid directly to Daniel Lynch; and at about the said time, at the request of the said Helms, he paid to the said Daniel the further sum of $455, for which he took the promissory note of Helms. March 8, 1873, Daniel Lynch, being the owner of another tract of land, gave a mortgage thereon to the said Charles L. Vanneman to secure the payment of a bond for $4,050, so much money then loaned to the said Daniel Lynch. August 27, 1877, Helms Lynch and wife conveyed the said 252 acres to the said Charles L. Vanneman and Helms Vanneman, in which conveyance it is declared to be subject to the said mortgage of $5,000; no reference whatever being made to the $11,380. On the 27th day of August, 1877. the said Charles L. Vanneman called at the house of the said Daniel Lynch, and, after a protracted interview with him, a part, if not all, of which was had in the presence of his wife and three of his children, he procured from the said Daniel the surrender of the $11,380 mortgage, with a receipt written thereon in full discharge thereof. The said Charles held said mortgage until the 19th day of October then next, when he procured its cancellation. Daniel died on the 8th day of August, 1885. The allegations in the bill are that the said $11,380 was never paid in full, and that the said Daniel Lynch, the mortgagee, at the time he surrendered it, was of unsound mind, and incapable of managing his affairs; and that the mortgage was obtained from him by unfair means, and by taking advantage of his mental infirmities.
In my judgment two questions arise for consideration: (1) Was the mortgage paid in full at the time of its surrender? (2) If there be serious doubt whether it was paid or not, then is the complainant chargeable with laches?
1. The payments, it will be observed, are alleged to have been made by the said Charles L. Vanneman by advancing $4,730 on the 6th of March, 1869, for which he took a mortgage on the same premises from Helms, and on the 20th of the same month $1,000, for which he took the promissory note of Helms, and about the same time $455, for which he also took the promissory note of Helms; all of which sums he alleges were paid to Daniel Lynch. These payments are all denied by the complainant. On the 27th day of August, 1877, there was a payment of the whole amount due upon the mortgage which the said Charles L. Vanneman held against the said Daniel Lynch, the principal of which was $4,050, and the interest which had accrued. That this payment was made is not disputed. We must therefore endeavor to ascertain whether or not the three sums of $4,730 and $1,000 and $455 were paid to Daniel Lynch in March, 1869. It is very important to observe that this transaction took place at the office and in the presence of a scrivener, Mr. Coley, who has since died, at which place-Daniel Lynch was in attendance. Helms V. Lynch must have been in attendance, for he executed a bond and mortgage to Charles L. Vanneman; but I feel obliged to say that his testimony appears to me to be so uncertain, so contradictory, and so inconsistent with the position he occupied that I am unwilling to base any judgment upon it that looks towards a settlement of the rights of these parties by judicial decree. A paper is produced by the defendant on which are written what purports to be two receipts by Daniel Lynch,—one for the $4,730, and one for the $1,000,—with the name of Daniel Lynch written under each, which is shown to the witness Helms, and which he admits to be in his own handwriting, but which he also admits having said he wrote at the dictation of his father. His statements respecting the genuineness of these receipts are so trifling, so vague, and so devoid of sense or meaning that I am unwilling to trust him as a witness, and must consider the case as though he had not testified. If these payments were made at all, they were made in March, 1869. Notwithstanding Daniel Lynch and Charles L. Vanneman were brothers-in-law, and were on friendly, if not on intimate, terms, nothing has appeared to show that from 1869 to 1877 there was ever a word passed between them respecting this $11,380 mortgage, or the alleged payments thereon. If Daniel were still living, so that he and Charles could tell their stories, it then might be shown that there was no occasion for any surprise at the absence of interviews between them on this subject. But, Daniel being dead, he cannot speak; and, this being so, the statute prohibits Charles from speaking. But in August, 1877, they had an interview upon the subject of the $11,380 mortgage, which we have a right to infer from the fact that it was then surrendered by Daniel after he had signed an indorsement thereon acknowledging the payment. However, what took place then beyond such indorsement and surrender we do not know; for, Charles only surviving, he cannot speak. Ordinarily, the fair inference would be that the mortgage was paid and satisfied; for, had it not been so, Daniel would not have surrendered it.
The complainant contends that all that was then paid upon the mortgage was the amount due upon the $4,050 mortgage which Daniel had given to Charles' in 1873; and that Charles, by taking advantage of the mental infirmities and weaknesses of Daniel, had prevailed upon him to indorse said mortgage as paid, and then to surrender it for cancellation. As to this infirmity, suffice it to say that, many years previous to this, Daniel had been in the asylum for several months, and that, after his discharge therefrom, much of his conduct was very peculiar. He would endeavor to secrete or hide himself from his friends at times. He would take books, and go into the woods, or gowithout books, and remain there alone for a day, and sometimes for a longer period of time; sometimes returning to his home for meals, and sometimes not. It is most evident that his mind was not well balanced, and that he had so little thought or care about his property that he almost absolutely neglected it. Though this be emphatically so, he was allowed to have his own way, the members of his family never interfering with him, but, I think, frequently consulted with him as to the conduct or management of their affairs. Two of his sons managed his farm chiefly according to their own judgment. There is nothing to show that his infirmities were of such a nature as to destroy his ability to determine values, or to make just comparisons. Nor is there any proof or claim that he was ever imposed upon or wronged in any other transaction than the one under consideration. I have said that he almost absolutely neglected his affairs, trusting to his sons; yet not always so, for in 1873 he borrowed of his brother-in-law, the said Charles L. Vanneman, $4,050, and gave his bond and mortgage on his farm to secure the payment thereof. It should also be borne in mind that he executed the deed passing the title for this 252-acre tract of land in 1866.
My mind inclines to the conviction that Daniel Lynch's mental infirmities were of such a nature as to cast the burden of showing this transaction to have been fair and honest upon Charles L. Vanneman, notwithstanding he procured the surrender of the mortgage, with a receipt in full indorsed thereon, were it not for other mitigating and controlling circumstances which the law regards as laches, and which may most justly be presented as a defense. As intimated, Charles and his brother took the title to this land from Helms Lynch on the 27th of August, 1877. On that day Charles called at the home of his brother-in-law, Daniel, when Daniel, his wife, daughter, and three of his sons, were at home, and all of them in and about the house a large portion of the time, and three of them all of the time. I think it cannot be successfully disputed but that they well understood the object Charles had in view. He was there in conference with Helms about this matter from one to three hours. Every circumstance or condition at the time, and for days after, was calculated to excite or quicken them to activity, in ease there had been any evidence of wrong or unfair dealing. The conduct and declarations of Daniel were allowed to be detailed by the witnesses, his wife and children, not for the purpose of binding Charles, because he was not present, nor as part of the res gestœ necessarily, but for the purpose of showing the mental condition of Daniel so immediately thereafter as to afford some aid in reaching a reasonable judgment as to the extent of his mental weakness, and also for the purpose of showing how the members of his family who controlled his business affairs were influenced by what he then said and did. Almost immediately after Charles left with the mortgage, Daniel went to bed, without in any manner undressing himself, and remained in bed for two or three days. He seemed to be in great distress, and expressed great anxiety respecting the transaction with Charles; saying, in effect, he was afraid he would never pay him. These things his wife and children all knew. They took place August 27, 1877. Daniel lived until August 8, 1885,—eight years less nineteen days. During all this time until nearly the last, there was but little, if any, change or decline in his mental spirits or vigor. He attended to and looked after his own affairs with about the same indifference that he had done for years before. He continued to reside at his home with his wife and children, enjoying all the attention and solicitude which they could bestow. It is plain, and the court must conclude, that Daniel must have become reasonably well satisfied with the surrender of the mortgage; for if he had not, during these eight years, he would have taken some steps to redress any supposed injury. And it seems to me that this same observation must be made with still greater emphasis, so far as his wife, and especially his children, are concerned. They knew all about the aberrations of his mind, and had for a long time previous to the surrender of the mortgage. They had been attending to almost every business transaction in his behalf. They were present at the surrender of the mortgage. Although they knew what was going on, and knew the mental weaknesses with which he was afflicted, and saw the agitation of his mind, and saw the apparent prostration of his body, after the surrender, they neither interfered to prevent the surrender, or to inquire into the details of the transaction; nor did they take any steps to see that it was correctly conducted, or to prevent the husband or father from being imposed upon; nor did they afterwards become alarmed, and so awakened as to attempt any redress. From that time until the 19th of October, when Charles presented the mortgage for cancellation, one and all remained silent; and this silence continued from thence until sometime after the death of Daniel, in 1885. No excuse whatsoever is offered for this delay. If an unbroken silence can ever be invoked to show an acquiescence, it seems to me this may be. Equity exacts diligence. It never tolerates a suitor in promoting his own profit by such procrastination. In this case, not only is Coley, the scrivener, dead, but Daniel Lynch also. Had proceedings been taken within a reasonable time after the surrender of the mortgage, not only would Daniel Lynch have been permitted to speak as a witness, but Charles L. Vanneman also. This delay of about eight years amounts to inexcusable laches. Doughty v. Doughty, 10 N. J. Eq. 347; Shipman v. Cook, 16 N. J. Eq. 251; Cooper v. Carlisle, 17 N. J. Eq. 525; Paulison v. Van Iderstine, 28 N. J. Eq. 306,29 N. J. Eq. 594; Hance v. Conover, 31 N. J. Eq. 505; Brown v. Insurance Co., 32 N. J. Eq. 809; Wood v. Chetwood, 33 N. J. Eq. 9; Creath's Adm'r v. Sims, 5 How. 192. Brown v. Buena Vista, 95 U. S. 159; Lupton v. Janney, 13 Pet. 381; West v. Randall, 2 Mason, 181; Maxwell v. Kennedy, 8 How. 210; Elmendorf v. Taylor, 10 Wheat. 152; Godden v. Kimmell, 99 U. S. 201; Sullivan v. Railroad Co., 94 U. S. 807; Wilkinson v. Sherman, ante, 228. I think the bill should be dismissed, with costs.