Bell v. Campbell

Citation25 S.W. 359,123 Mo. 1
PartiesBELL v. CAMPBELL et al.
Decision Date13 February 1894
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Appeal from circuit court, Buchanan county; H. M. Ramsy, Judge.

Action by Mary Bell against T. E. Campbell and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

The other facts fully appear in the following statement by SHERWOOD, J.:

The correctness of the abstract in this case, prepared by counsel for plaintiff, is virtually conceded by counsel for defendants, who refer to the same, from time to time, in verification of their statement. From that abstract we gather the following as the substances of the pleadings and evidence:

By this proceeding plaintiff sought to prevent the sale of her farm under a deed of trust to defendant Campbell, as trustee for the Saxton National Bank, and two others. This deed was dated June 25, 1888, and was given to secure three promissory notes of equal amounts, aggregating $7,700, due in three years, at 8 per cent., payable every 90 days, given by plaintiff to the several beneficiaries aforesaid; and plaintiff also sought to cancel such notes and deed of trust on the ground that they had been obtained by undue influence, improper practices, etc. The answer was tantamount to the general issue. Carter, though a defendant, did not answer. Pending litigation, the property in question was sold under the deed of trust, and Stephen C. Woodson, the vice president of the Saxton Bank, bought in the property for $5,000, and thereupon credits of $1,632.46, each dated August 7, 1891, were indorsed on the several notes as the product of that sale, less costs, etc. Also indorsements were made on the notes showing interest payable from time to time up to March 25, 1891. Under the sigture of plaintiff on the notes payable to the Saxton National Bank appeared the signature of Henry C. Carter. Carter was the son-in-law of plaintiff, he having married her daughter, Alma Bell, by whom he had a child; the parties having been married some 20 years. Plaintiff was a widow, ignorant, illiterate, unaccustomed to the ways of the world or with business affairs, and some 70 years of age at the time the transactions which gave origin to the present litigation occurred. She had left the farm, her little all, and had moved to the city, and lived close by her son-in-law, Carter, who it seems, enjoyed her confidence, and attended to her affairs, though her son, his wife, and two children lived in the same house with her. In 1875, plaintiff's husband directly deeded to her the litigated property, and in 1884, he having died, she occupied it as her homestead until 1887, when she moved to the city. Carter, prior to June, 1888, was treasurer of the city of St. Joseph, and in that capacity had defaulted in the sum of $7,700. His bondsmen were Adam N. Schuster, Louis Hax, and S. A. Walker, of the Schuster-Hax National Bank; Stephen C. Woodson, J. W. McAllister, and A. M. Saxton, of the Saxton National Bank; and Calvin F. Burnes, of the National Bank of St. Joseph. At that time Schuster and Burnes were presidents, Woodson a vice president, and Walker a cashier. Shortly after the defalcation it was agreed between Woodson, Burnes, Walker, and Carter that each of the three banks should lend Carter one-third of the money, and that they would accept a joint deed of trust on the Bell farm. There is nothing to show that plaintiff was informed of this agreement, or consulted with in reference to it. Nor does it appear that she had any notice about Carter's defalcation until some three or four days before she signed the instruments sought to be canceled, or was in any respect informed respecting the responsibility she was soon to be called upon to assume. Carter, confronted with his defalcation and its consequences, formed a plan for raising money to make that defalcation good, and, with a view to that, determined to have an abstract of the title to the farm of plaintiff made, which was done by Hedenberg early in April, 1888, and, in order to make the title perfect in every particular, solicited quitclaim deeds from the Bell heirs to the plaintiff, without her knowledge, and, carefully concealing his purpose from the heirs, with this end in prospect, he wrote letters stating to them that plaintiff wished to sell the farm, but could not do so without quitclaim deeds from them, and also went on a trip to Andrew county to see a sister-in-law. Accompanying him was a detective, whom the chief of police sent with him, fears being entertained from his manner and actions that he would commit suicide. Very close surveillance was kept over him by the detective on this account; in fact, while on this mission, he was in a state of semi-arrest. Carter, failing to procure deeds from the heirs as he desired, sent for plaintiff a few days before the deed of trust was executed, — that is to say, about the 21st of June, 1888, — to call at his house. She called, and then his importunities began. He disclosed to her his situation, the amount that he was liable for to the city, his inability to raise the sum without her help, the likelihood that he would be sent to jail unless the money were obtained, and then implored her to save him from disgrace by giving a mortgage on her farm, which she stoutly refused to do. Again and again he renewed the attack during the space of four days, and, taking plaintiff by the hand, he got on his knees, and begged her to give the mortgage on her farm, or else he was ruined; but plaintiff steadfastly refused. About 8 o'clock on the morning of June 25, 1888, while plaintiff and her daughter-in-law were clearing off the breakfast table, Carter came in there, requested to see plaintiff when at leisure, then passing on into the sitting room, where he paced backwards and forwards, uttering groans that were heard in the dining room. A few moments later, Carter's son "Lolly" came in, and told plaintiff that his father said he would never leave her house; he would cut his throat before he would leave the house, if she did not sign the deed. Carter thereupon told plaintiff that he had come to her for the last time; that if she did not sign the deed she would have to care for his family, etc.; appealing to her to help him by all the considerations likely to touch a parent's, and especially a mother's, heart. His wife and child were there also while Carter was beseeching plaintiff to come to his rescue, and united their prayers with his. Of this, plaintiff testifies his child came and said: "`Grandma, what will we do?' and said his father would never leave the house. And, directly she came, [Mrs. Carter,] * * * I says, `Harry, I cannot do it;' and he paced the floor back and forth, until his family came, and excited me to death. * * * He was there and she was there, and she was just going on; she did not know anything, in fact." While plaintiff was thus surrounded by all these distressing circumstances, Carter left about 11 o'clock, and called at the mayor's office, requesting Mr. Englehart to call at his house, and endeavor to relieve the distress of his wife. The mayor replied that he could only say to her that he would not suspend him from the office of auditor, to which he had been recently elected, if his shortage as treasurer was made good. This Carter thought would "relieve her mind," and the mayor replied, "I will come up after a while." Carter also had another call to make before his return, and he made it. It was upon S. C. Woodson. The purpose of that call is best explained in the language of that witness, who says: "On the evening preceding my going Mr. Carter came to me, and said his wife was very much distressed, and asked me if I would not go up and see if I could not pacify her about this matter, stating that he had made arrangements by which the notes would be executed to these different parties; and I told him that I would go when he so desired." Carter at once called upon Mr. Woodson to keep his promise of the day before, and they went to the house together; the mayor following shortly after, alone. Why Englehart and why Woodson were called upon to visit Mrs. Carter "to pacify her" or "relieve her distress," seeing that they were entire strangers to her, is not explained. On his arrival, Woodson entered the parlor, and Carter, calling his wife from the sitting room, introduced her to him. At this point Woodson says: "Sh...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT