Middlesex Banking Co. v. Field

• Decision Date: 06 June 1904
• Citation: 37 So. 139,84 Miss. 646
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: MIDDLESEX BANKING COMPANY ET AL. v. SARAH M. FIELD

37 So. 139

84 Miss. 646

MIDDLESEX BANKING COMPANY ET AL. v. SARAH M. FIELD

Supreme Court of Mississippi

June 6, 1904

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

FROM the chancery court of Bolivar county, HON. A. MCC. KIMBROUGH Chancellor.

Bill by Eldon C. Field against the Middlesex Banking Company and others to procure the cancellation of certain instruments on the ground of fraud. Eldon C. Field died, and the suit was revived in the name of Bate Field as his sole devisee and legatee. Subsequently Bate Field died, and the suit was revived in the name of Mrs. Sarah M. Field as devisee and legatee. From the decree rendered, certain defendants appealed to the supreme court.

For a previous decision in the case, see Field v. Middlesex Banking Co., 26 So. 365; s. c., 77 Miss. 180.

Eldon C. Field, a bachelor, owned four plantations in Bolivar county, Miss. and in November, 1889, he had a stroke of paralysis, which for a time affected him seriously both mentally and physically. His property was worth about $ 30,000, and was incumbered. On January 7, 1890, he executed a power of attorney to his brother, J. H. Field, Sr., making him his general agent, with large powers. On August 30, 1890 he executed a deed to said J. H. Field, Sr., which is set out in full in the opinion of the court by WHITFIELD, C. J., conveying to him all of said plantations on certain trusts and limitations therein set out. Acting under this deed, J. H. Field, Sr., undertook to borrow money on these plantations, and was informed by the parties to whom he applied that they would not make loans to trustees, and it was then agreed that the places should be sold under the deeds of trust then on them and a judgment then in force against Eldon C. Field, and that Julien Field should purchase and take the title in his name; and the Middlesex Banking Company agreed to furnish the money with which to make these purchases, and to lend Julien Field additional money on them. Under this arrangement the titles were all conveyed to Julien Field, and he borrowed the additional money agreed to be furnished, and gave deeds of trust on the plantations to secure it; and under these deeds of trust they were all subsequently sold, and purchased by the Union Investment Company, but before these sales, at the request of the attorney for the Middlesex Banking Company, E. C. Field and J. H. Field, Sr., executed a quitclaim deed to Julien Field. On April 20, 1894, Eldon C. Field filed his bill in the chancery court of Bolivar county against J. H. Field, Sr., Bate Field, J. H. Field, Jr., and Julien Field, the Middlesex Banking Company, the Graves & Vinton Company, their agent, and Lee J. Lockwood, manager of the Graves & Vinton Company, the trustee. The bill alleged that the power of attorney executed to J. H. Field, Sr., was void because he was mentally incapacitated to execute it, and that the deed of August 30, 1890, was void for the reason that J. H. Field, Sr., represented to him that it was a will; that the quitclaim deed to Julien Field was void because it was never known of or accepted by him; and that each and all of the deeds and deeds of trust by means of which the said property was incumbered and sold were void because brought about by a conspiracy between J. H. Field, Sr., with Julien Field and the other defendants to breach the trust of August 30, 1890. The bill sought the cancellation of all these instruments.

These defendants all answered this bill, denying the equities set out therein. Some testimony was taken, but E. C. Field died March 20, 1895, testate, leaving all his property to Miss Bate Field. In April, 1895, Miss Bate Field employed the same counsel who had represented E. C. Field and probated the will of E. C. Field, and had herself appointed administratrix with will annexed, and revived the suit begun by E. C. Field in the name of Bate Field, sole devisee and legatee of E. C. Field. Some further proof was then taken. On November 25, 1896, after considerable negotiations, a compromise was effected of this suit, referred to by Justice TRULY in his concurring opinion, and Bate Field and J. H. Field, Jr, executed a special warranty deed to L. J. Lockwood, who afterwards conveyed the land to the Union Investment Company. In February, 1897, before the decree dismissing the cause had been entered, Miss Bate Field filed her supplemental bill, in which she sought to set aside and cancel the compromise and the special warranty deed and to continue the suit, and asked for the cancellation of the several deeds mentioned in the pleadings. The defendants all answered this bill, and the cause was heard, and a final decree rendered dismissing the bill. From that decree complainant appealed to the supreme court, and the cause was reversed, with instructions to allow the pleadings reformed. 26 So. 365; 77 Miss. 180. After the mandate was filed in the lower court, Miss Bate Field filed a cross-bill styled "Cross-bill of Bate Field, one of the defendants, against her co-defendants, J. H. Field, Sr., Julien Field, Lee J. Lockwood, the Graves & Vinton Co., the Middlesex Banking Co., and the Union Investment Co." In this bill she sets up the execution of the deed of August 30, 1890, the death of J. H. Field, Jr., without issue, and that by the will of E. C. Field all his property was devised to her. She alleges that neither under the power of attorney nor the deed of August 30, 1890, was authority given J. H. Field, Sr., to incumber any of the land; that J. H. Field, Sr., the Middlesex Banking Company, the Graves & Vinton Company, their agents, and Lee J. Lockwood, combined and confederated to breach the trust under which the lands had been conveyed to J. H. Fields, Sr., on August 30, 1890; to disincumber said lands of said trust, and to get the title so that the lands would be under the unrestrained control of J. H. Field, Sr.; that for that purpose they entered into a scheme under which the title should be vested in Julien Field, who was to hold it subject to the will and control of J. H. Field, Sr. The bill then sets out the various deeds, deeds of trust, etc., and charges that they were parts and parcels of the original illegal and fraudulent scheme. The bill then charges that the legal title is in Julien Field, a mere volunteer, holding it as the agent of J. H. Field, the delinquent trustee, for complainant and her brother and E. C. Field; that the fraudulent purpose was known to and participated in by all the defendants; and that the property is in equity chargeable with the same trusts under which it was held by J. H. Field, Sr. The bill avers: That under the deed of August 30, 1890, and by reason of the death of J. H. Field, Jr., there was vested in her a complete equitable estate in fee simple of all said lands, the limitations sought to be created in J. H. Field, Sr., being void for remoteness, and against the rule forbidding perpetuities in this state; and that, whether her title be considered as derived under this deed or under the will of E. C. Field, she is seized of a complete equitable estate in said lands and is entitled to a transfer of the legal title; that on the 21st day of November, 1896--the day after she obtained her majority--and without competent and sufficient advice, and without the knowledge of the various fraudulent acts of the defendants, she and her brother executed a quitclaim deed in consideration of $ 1,000 paid to each of them, whereby they conveyed to L. J. Lockwood their interests in said lands. The bill here charges that defendants willfully and knowingly concealed from them all knowledge of the various fraudulent schemes and actions charged; that she was not advised of any interest she had under the deed of August 30, 1890, and that she only intended to convey such estate as she acquired under the will of E. C. Field. She tenders the money received for the quitclaim deed. The defendants answered, denying specifically the equities of the cross-bill.

Miss Bate Field died testate, leaving all her property to her mother, Mrs. Sarah M. Field, and the suit was revived in her name. A large amount of testimony was taken, and on the final hearing there was a decree sustaining the cross-bill and granting the relief sought therein. From that decree the Middlesex Banking Company, Lee J. Lockwood, the Graves & Vinton Company, and the Union Investment Company appeal.

Decree reversed and bill dismissed.

Green & Green, and Calvin Perkins, for appellants.

Carroll, McKellar & Bullington, and Tim E. Cooper, for appellees.

[The briefs of counsel in this case were unusually full and able, but in view of the great length of the case a synopsis is not made of any one of them.]

Argued orally by M. Green and Calvin Perkins, for appellants, and by Tim E. Cooper and William H. Carroll, for appellees.

WHITFIELD, C. J. CALHOON, J. concurs. TRULY, J. specially concurs.

OPINION

WHITFIELD, C. J.

The chief question for solution is, Is the limitation over of the ultimate fee to J. Harris Field, Sr., by the deed of August 30, 1890, valid? That deed is as follows:

"This deed of conveyance, made and executed at Florence, Ala. on this 30th day of August, 1890, by and between Eldon C. Field hereinafter designated as the first party, and J. Harris Field, Bate Field, and J. Harris Field, Jr., hereinafter designated as the second parties, witnesseth: That the first party, for and in consideration of the natural love and affection which he has for the second parties (his brother niece, and nephew), does hereby bargain, sell, and convey to the said J. Harris Field, in trust for the said Bate Field and J. Harris, Jr., the following lands: [Here follows a description of the four plantations in controversy.] To have and to hold the said lands, with all and singular the appurtenances...