Parish v. Casner

• Decision Date: 12 March 1926
• Docket Number: No. 25117.,25117.
• Citation: 282 S.W. 392
• Parties: PARISH v. CASNER et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

282 S.W. 392

PARISH v. CASNER et al.

No. 25117.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

March 12, 1926.

Motion for Rehearing Denied April 12, 1926.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Allen C. Southern, Judge.

Action in equity by William E. Parish against C. S. Casner and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Samuel Feller, James A. Kemper, and Jay L. Oldham, all of Kansas City, and Chester Stevens, of Independence, Kan., for appellants.

Gossett, Ellis, Dietrich & Tyler, of Kansas City (A. N. Gossett, of Kansas City, of counsel), for respondent.

SEDDON, C.

This action, which is one in equity, was commenced in the circuit court of Jackson county on January 31, 1919. The petition is lengthy. In substance, it alleges: That on February 21, 1913, and for a long time prior thereto, plaintiff was the owner in fee simple of 320 acres of farm land in Jackson county, specifically described, subject to an aggregate mortgage incumbrance of approximately $15,000; that shortly before February 21, 1913, the defendants C. S. Casner and F. W. Casner (who are wife and husband, respectively), acting through and by the husband, F. W. Casner, as an inducement to plaintiff to exchange his said lands for certain purported notes and mortgages held by said defendants, represented and stated to plaintiff that said defendants, or one of them, held good and valid first lien Purchase-money notes, aggregating $25,000, secured by first lien mortgages upon certain lands, or lots, in the town or city of Holdenville, Hughes county, Okl., and that said lots were reasonably worth twice the amount of the principal of said mortgage indebtedness thereon, and that said defendant F. W. Casner was well acquainted with and knew the value of said lots, and that the same were of the value aforesaid and were free and clear of any other incumbrance; that said mortgage notes were about to mature and that defendants Casner and wife would have the same renewed by the execution of new mortgages similarly secured; that said defendants offered the same to plaintiff in exchange for his said lands, falsely representing said mortgages securing payment of said notes to be first lien purchase-money mortgages upon the respective lots in such mortgages described, and that such lots were of the reasonable value of twice the amount of the principal mortgage debts thereon, and that there was no other incumbrance or lien upon said lots prior or prejudicial to such mortgage debts; that in said exchange said morn gages were valued and represented to be of the value of $25,000 and plaintiff's lands were valued at and were well worth the sum of $35,000; that plaintiff did not know the contrary of said representations and believed the same to be true and relied upon the same; that the basis of such exchange between plaintiff and said defendants was that plaintiff's said lands should be taken by said defendants at a valuation of $35,000, subject to a mortgage indebtedness of $10,000, leaving the equity in plaintiff's lands at $25,000; that, at the suggestion of said defendants, plaintiff went to Holdenville, Okl., with said F. W. Casner, and said Casner pointed out said lands in Holdenville, and again falsely stated and told plaintiff that the same were of the values aforesaid and worth at least twice the amount of the respective mortgage debts thereon; that, in pursuance and consummation of said scheme to deceive and defraud plaintiff, said F. W. Casner procured the title to said Holdenville lands, subject to the purported mortgage indebtedness thereon, to be conveyed to one J. W. Sappington, a "straw man" for said Casners, and thereupon caused said Sappington to execute new mortgages against said lands, purporting to secure the payment of notes aggregating $25,000; that plaintiff, being thereby so induced and ignorant of the real value of said Holdenville lands, and relying upon said false statements of defendants Casner and believing the same to be true, did exchange his said lands in Jackson county for said notes and, together with his wife, did make, execute and deliver their deed of conveyance of plaintiff's said lands, at the request and direction of said defendants, to defendant C. S. Casner, wife of defendant F. W. Casner, and did receive from them the said $25,000 in mortgage notes; that, in order to reduce the indebtedness upon plaintiff's lands to the sum of $10,000, the defendants Casner retained all of said mortgage notes, except one note for $5,000, to secure an advance of $4,000 made by said Casners to plaintiff, represented by a note for $4,000 from plaintiff and purporting to be made to defendant F. O. Southard, who was another "straw man" for said Casners; that thereafter, and within one year preceding the filing of said petition, plaintiff has ascertained and learned (being theretofore ignorant thereof) that said statements and representations of defendants Casner were false and untrue, in that said notes and mortgages were not real purchase-money mortgage notes or debts; that said Sappington was a "straw man" for said Casners and had no real interest in said Holdenville lands, but that said lands really belonged to said defendants Casner; that said lands were not, at the time of said representations and never had been, worth more than one-fourth of the respective mortgage indebtedness thereon; that, at the time of said representations, said mortgages were not first liens upon said lands, but at the time said mortgages and notes were so delivered to plaintiff said lands were assessed or charged with a large amount of special taxes or assessments for street improvements in an amount exceeding the entire real value of said lands, and said notes and mortgages so delivered to plaintiff were worthless at and since the time of their delivery; that, in further pursuance of their scheme to defraud plaintiff, the said defendants Casner, on or about April 16, 1917, purported to convey plaintiff's said Jackson county lands to defendant E. E. Smith, who had full knowledge and notice of the facts and matters hereinabove stated; that said defendant Smith is a myth or "straw man" for said defendants Casner and that said deed from the Casners to Smith was made without consideration and in furtherance of said fraudulent scheme, in order to conceal the apparent ownership of said lands; that said Smith purported to execute a mortgage deed of trust purporting to secure a $10,000 note of even date due 10 years after date, payable to the order of defendant James B. Brown, who is also a "straw man" for the said Casners; that plaintiff, being ignorant of the truth and real facts in the premises, and relying upon the false representations and statements of said Casners, did recognize the said Casners as the owners of said Jackson county lands, and afterwards recognized said Smith as the owner thereof, and did sign certain leases to said lands from the Casners to plaintiff in the years 1913 to 1916, inclusive, and from said Smith to plaintiff in the years 1917 and 1918, but that such acts were done before plaintiff learned or knew of the falsity of the representations of the Casners aforesaid and while plaintiff relied upon and believed the same to be true; that on or about August 30, 1918, said defendant E. E. Smith purported to convey said Jackson county lands to defendant J. F. Young, by deed filed for record on September 17, 1918, purporting to be in consideration of $1 and other valuable considerations; that said Young at said time had full knowledge of all matters and things herein stated and said deed was without consideration, other than a pretended assumption of certain mortgages or deeds of trust upon said lands; that said Young had no property of appreciable amount and his pretended assumption of said mortgage indebtedness was a blind and pretense, in order to make a pretended valuable consideration appear; that each of the defendants, from time to time, have colluded, connived, and confederated with said Casners, and with others of them, in the premises to wrongfully and unlawfully deprive plaintiff of said Jackson county lands, and have, from time to time, brought certain suits or proceedings upon pretended causes of action against plaintiff for rent, unlawful detainer, and in replevin, so that plaintiff is harassed and annoyed with a multiplicity of suits; that plaintiff is without remedy at law and complete justice cannot be done in the premises, except by a court of equity.

The petition was amended at the trial on February 28, 1923, over the objections of defendants, by adding thereto the following paragraph:

"Except, however, that plaintiff did, in or about the latter part of year 1913, or in 1914, learn that there was a large amount of taxes and tax sales unpaid and unredeemed on said land; that he thereupon communicated such fact to defendants Casner, and they, through F. W. Casner, stated to plaintiff, and he believed and relied thereon, that such taxes would be taken care of, and not to worry; and upon failure of plaintiff to receive payment of interest on such notes so given to him, and being unable to dispose of such notes on efforts made therefor during the next 5 years ensuing after such exchange or trade with said defendants, on inquiry of said Casners through said F. W. Casner made by plaintiff as to why such interest was not paid and as to why said notes could not be negotiated or disposed of and realized upon, they, said defendants, through said F. W. Casner, did state to plaintiff that times were hard at Holdenville, and that they would, as often theretofore stated, aid and help plaintiff in disposing of and realizing on said notes. Plaintiff further states that for more than 5 years after January, 1913, and in said month, said defendants Casner, so having plaintiff's confidence, did pretend great friendship and solicitude for plaintiff, and advised him in all plaintiff's business matters, and offered...