Does Defendant have any grounds to deny that plaintiff was of sound mind at the time of the marriage?

While defendant's evidence created a conflict with that of plaintiff's witnesses which would have supported a finding that plaintiff at the time of the marriage was of sound mind, it does not compel such a finding. The finding of the jury that he was then of unsound mind is a reasonable one and supported by substantial evidence. Defendant seems to contend that because no witness for plaintiff testified to seeing plaintiff on the exact say of the wedding, plaintiff on the exact day of the wedding, no evidence of unsoundness of mind on that day. While it is plaintiff's mental condition on that day that [147 Cal.App.2d 670] is in issue, that condition may be determined from his condition prior and subsequent to the day. See In re Estate of Perkins, 195 Cal. 699, 703, 235 P. 45. The situation here is somewhat similar to that in Williams v. Williams, 1923, 63 Cal.App. 482, 218 P. 783, where the court upheld a judgment annulling a marriage even though no witnesses for the successful plaintiff saw him on the day of the marriage. The language of the court is particularly applicable here, 63 Cal.App. at page 486, 218 P. at page 784: 'The plaintiff called four doctors who qualified as experts and testified in substance that their examination indicated that the patient was suffering from dementia praecox, that his condition was such that their opinion was that at the time of his marriage it would have been impossible for him to have appreciated the solemnity of the marriage vows, as his judgment would have been too impaired for him to understand the nature, obligations, and responsibilities of marriage. We do not deem it necessary to go further into the testimony of the experts. Suffice to say that

Page 694

As said in Dunphy v. Dunphy, 161 Cal. 380, 385, 119 P. 512, 514, 38 L.R.A.N.S., 818, the law permits intimate acquaintances to give their opinions as to the mental sanity of a person and therefore, some weight 'may be attributed to the opinion, over and above that which would follow, as matter of necessary inference, from the reasons assigned.' As to the opinion of the three medical witnesses, 'Expert witnesses may give their opinions concerning the mental condition of a person. They are not restricted to the mere declaration of an opinion that the person is or is not of sound mind, but may state the nature and extent of the deficiencies, if any, which they believe to exist.' In re Estate of Schulmeyer, 171 Cal. 340, 346, 153 P. 233, 236. Defendant characterized the opinions of the medical men as mere 'abstract opinions' and hence not sufficient to support the finding of mental illness. They are not such. They are opinions based upon an examination of the subject, within a few days of the marriage. One doctor saw plaintiff two days before the marriage, the second saw him two days after, and the third fifteen days after. They were not giving their [147 Cal.App.2d 671] opinions based upon hypothetical questions, ¹ but from an actual observation of plaintiff himself.