Parszyk v. Mach

Citations

• 10 S.D. 555
• 74 N.W. 1027
• 1898 S.D. LEXIS 36

Syllabus

<p>1. A complaint in a suit to cancel a deed stated a cause of action, where the averments justified evidence to show that at and prior to the time of the execution and delivery of such deed, which was obtained through undue influence on the part of defendant, plaintiff, by reason of insanity was without legal capacity to transact any business, and that after his restoration to sanity, and before the commencement of such action, he offered to return to defendant everything of value which he had received in consideration for such conveyance, and demanded a reconveyance, which was refused.</p> <p>2. It was not necessary for plaintiff, in a suit to cancel a deed obtained from ' him, through undue influence, when insane, to negative, by way of recital in his complaint, any confirmation of, or long acquiescence in, such transaction after recovering his mental capacity, in order to entitle him to prove that he acted with reasonable promptness on being restored to reason.</p> <p>3. Under Comp. Laws, \\ 5097, limiting the relief to be granted, in default of an answer, to that demanded in the complaint, a default decree adjudging that a certain deed be cancelled, and the title to the property in question confirmed in plaintiff, and that defendant, .and all persons claiming by, through, or under her, be forever barred and enjoined from asserting any right, title or interest in or to such property, was unauthorized, as in excess of the prayer, where, though the complaint stated a cause of action, no substantial relief was demanded.</p> <p>4. An order opening a default was within the discretionary power of the court, where the application therefor was supported by a verified answer on the merits, and an affidavit designed to show excusable mistake and inadvertence on the part of defendant, though plaintiff produced evidence tending to show her bad faith.</p>