Smyth v. Fitch

BURNETT, J.

The action was in the usual form to quiet title to certain real property in the county of El Dorado. The appellants herein became parties by a complaint in intervention in which they alleged failure of consideration, fraud, and undue influence on the part of plaintiff in Obtaining the deed which she claims, and upon the issues thus raised a trial was had and the findings and judgment were in favor of plaintiff. The appeal was taken under the alternative method, but appellants have not presented in their brief any of the evidence upon which they relied or to which they desired to direct the attention of this court, as required by section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure. Nevertheless, we have examined the record and are satisfied that, contrary to the contention of appellants, the findings are amply supported and that we would not be justified in disturbing the conclusion of the lower court. We may state the salient facts as follows: Emily Charles, a widow, and mother of eight children, among whom were the plaintiff and the interveners herein, was for many years prior to her death in 1916 the owner of a 160-acre farm in said county. On February 24, 1908, she was declared to be mentally incompetent by the superior court of that county and Manfred J. Williams, a son and one of the appellants herein, was appointed guardian, but never qualified or acted as such. On March- 27, 1911, she was restored to competency by said court, Judge Arnot presiding, and a judgment of restoration duly made and entered, from which no appeal has ever been taken. After her restoration, and upon the same day, she made, executed, and delivered to one of her daughters, Florence Agnes Smyth, respondent herein, a deed of said tract of land, wherein she “granted, bargained and sold, conveyed and confirmed” the same to said daughter in con

[492]

sideration of the sum of ten dollars, and also in further consideration of the performance by the grantee of certain conditions, including the constant personal presence of the grantee upon said farm and also the furnishing by her to the grantor of food, clothing, medical attendance, nurse’s care, and the defraying of the expense of the last illness, final interment of the grantor after death, said deed providing for reversion in case of a breach. Appellants contend in their brief that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding of the court that the grantor was competent to make such deed and also that the grantee complied with and carried out the conditions therein prescribed.