Wyse v. Wyse (155 N.Y. 367, 1898)

Per Curiam.

• This action was brought on the equity side of. the court for the purpose of setting aside a conveyance of real property, transfers of personal property and a release made by the plaintiff to the defendant Marie S. Wyse, his wife, upon the ground of the plaintiff’s unsoundness of mind, imbecility and incapacity to dispose of his property, and of the undue influence exerted upon him by said defendant.

The evidence upon the trial was ample, if not overwhelming, to support the decision of the judge at Special Term, to the effect that, upon the occasions of the transfers of property in question, the plaintiff was not a person of unsound mind, or insane, or imbecile, or otherwise incapable of exercising his own free will in the disposition which he made of his property; that upon none of such occasions did the defendant Marie S. Wyse exert any undue influence over him to induce him to make any of the said transfers of property; that she at no time agreed to hold any of the property so transferred to her for the benefit of the plaintiff, or for the joint benefit of the plaintiff and herself, and that the release in question executed by the plaintiff was of his own free will and without any undue influence.

We have carefully examined the evidence, in the light of the argument made for the appellant, and we think no other conclusion could have been well reached by the trial judge. ETor do we think that any case was made out, which would warrant the court in fastening a trust upon the legal title of the defendant Marie S. Wyse to the property in question. The principle is not applicable here upon which a court of equity proceeds, in order to convert the transferee of property into a trustee ; inasmuch as the case is lacking in the essential elements for its application. The decision of the trial judge not only negatives the idea of any undue influence exerted, or advantage taken, by the defendant Marie S. Wyse; but the circumstances, as fully revealed by 'the evidence, all militate in favor of the transfers of the property having been voluntarily made and without any condition or promise attached.

Our attention is directed to certain rulings of the trial judge upon questions of evidence. ETon-experts, or lay 'witnesses, were examined as to their impressions of the mental condition of the plaintiff. 'The witness Williams, who knew the plaintiff and had been in the habit of meeting with him frequently, was asked this question: “ From your observation of him and from conversations with him, what impression was left on your mind as to his condition mentally ? ” The witness Hill, who was a lawyer, and who had represented the plaintiff’s wife in a previous action brought against her by the plaintiff to set aside these transfers of property, and who had ' had a conversation with the plaintiff, was asked this question :