Lins v. Lenhardt

• Decision Date: 05 March 1895
• Citation: 29 S.W. 1025,127 Mo. 271
• Parties: Lins et al., v. Lenhardt et al., Appellants
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

29 S.W. 1025

127 Mo. 271

Lins et al., v. Lenhardt et al., Appellants

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

March 5, 1895

Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court. -- Hon. H. M. Ramey, Judge.

Equitable proceeding instituted at the September term, 1888, by Charles Lins and wife against Theresa Lenhardt, the widow of John Lenhardt, who died March 1, 1888, a little over seventy years old. Mrs. Lins or "Katy" is one of the children of John Lenhardt by his first marriage. Maggie, Marie, Josie and Frank are children of John and Theresa by a second marriage. The children of the second marriage, as well as the widow were made parties defendant. The object of the petition is to have Theresa and Maggie declared trustees of certain real estate to the extent of Katie's interest therein, as one of the heirs of John, her father.

As bases for this relief, the petition charges that John was of unsound mind, feeble in health, and decrepit with age, was induced by the fraudulent practices and dominant and undue influence of his wife, Theresa, to transfer to her, on or about June 25, 1887, some $ 16,000, received by him as the cash proceeds of the sale of certain land in St. Joseph to a railway corporation, and deposited by him in the State Savings Bank, in that city; that, on August 8, next thereafter, by similar means, Theresa induced John to transfer to her $ 4,000, the residue of the proceeds of the sale of the land, deposited as aforesaid; that Theresa drew the funds thus deposited from the bank, and has secreted the greater part thereof; that Theresa, by means of undue influence, induced John to purchase certain parcels of real estate in the city of St. Joseph, which were paid for out of the money of John; that Theresa covinously procured the deeds for such parcels of land to be made to her, and fraudulently put them to record December 1, 1887, contrary to the express requests of John to the agent in that behalf; that, on the twenty-sixth day of June, 1887, John then owning one half of lot 11 in block 33, in Patee's addition to the city of St. Joseph, being weak in body and mind as aforesaid, was induced, deceived and defrauded by Theresa to convey said half lot to "Maggie," her daughter, and that was done, as were the funds in bank procured to be transferred as aforesaid, by impressing on the mind of John the baseless belief that he was about to be sued by some persons who made some claim against him, would be involved in litigation judgments rendered against him, and his property taken to satisfy the same, unless conveyed beyond the reach of execution process; that, induced by these fraudulent and deceptive representations, being unable to resist the dominating influence of his wife in his then feeble condition, John made transfer of that lot and of other funds in bank; that "Maggie" conspired with her mother in all the fraudulent purposes and practices aforesaid, and holds title to said lot for the uses and purposes of her mother; that Theresa had no property when married to John and never acquired any by descent or purchase; that John had an estate and added largely thereto by industry and enterprise that in order to further her design to obtain John's property, Theresa abandoned him, and instituted suits against him for divorce and alimony, and he, in order to avoid scandal and litigation, transferred to her, by way of compromise and adjustment, certain portions of his property that, by such means, she obtained and still retains large portions of his estate not theretofore mentioned in the petition; that John always desired that plaintiff "Katy" should share equally with his other heirs in whatever estate he should die seized and possessed of; that Theresa endeavored so far as in her lay, to thwart John's wishes in this regard, etc.; that all the property described in the petition was in equity and good conscience the property of John at the time of his death, etc. The petition concludes with a prayer for appropriate relief.

This petition was an amended one, and was filed February 22, 1892, after the hearing, which began November 6, 1891, the cause having been continued for future argument, which occurred March 4, 1892. Defendants objected and excepted to the filing of the amended petition, but, their objection being overruled, filed a general denial and never saved the point in their motion for a new trial.

After hearing argument the court entered the following decree:

"This cause having been heretofore submitted to the court upon the pleadings and evidence of the parties, and argued by the counsel, and by the court taken under advisement, and the court being now well advised what judgment should be entered in the case, doth now order that plaintiffs may amend their petition to conform to the proofs in the case, and thereupon the plaintiffs file amended petition in conformity to such order, and the defendants file answer thereto and plaintiffs file replication, and thereupon, upon consideration of the pleadings so made, and the proofs made as aforesaid, the court doth find the allegation of the plaintiffs' petition to be true and all issues herein for the plaintiffs and that they are entitled to the relief prayed in their petition.

"The court doth therefore order, adjudge and decree the transfer by the late John Lenhardt to defendant Theresa Lenhardt of the money and funds in bank, mentioned in the petition, was procured by the undue influence and fraud of the said Theresa exercised over and practiced upon the said John; that the said property described in the petition, except the lot conveyed to said defendant Margaret, was purchased with, and paid for out of said funds, so fraudulently procured from said John, and that said property was purchased by said John and intended to be conveyed to him; but by the machination and fraud of said Theresa the deeds therefor were procured to be made to her:

"That the deed made to the defendant Margaret, whereby the north half of lot 11, in block 33, in Patee's addition to the city of St. Joseph, Buchanan county, Missouri, was conveyed to said Margaret, was procured in the manner, by the means and for the purpose stated in the petition:

"That the said John Lenhardt left surviving him five children, to wit: Defendants Joseph, Frank, Mary, Margaret and plaintiff Katie, as his sole heirs at law; that the said Katie Lins is entitled to one fifth of said estate of said John Lenhardt.

"The court further finds and decrees that the funds in bank aforesaid, procured by said Theresa as aforesaid and all increase and investments thereof by said Theresa, were the property of said John Lenhardt at his death, and the pretended transfer thereof to said Theresa, and investments in her name were null and void as to said plaintiff, Katie Lins; that the said Theresa holds an undivided fifth part of said real estate, described in the petition, to wit: Lots 8 and 9 in block 54, lot 28 in block 71; lot 3 in block 20; lots 30 and 31 in block 44; lots 12 and 13 in block 72; lots 14 and 15 in block 30, all in St. Joseph Extension Addition to the city of St. Joseph, Buchanan county, Missouri, in trust for the plaintiff Katie Lins, and the defendant Margaret, holds the undivided one fifth of the aforesaid north half of lot 11 in block 33, in Patee's addition aforesaid, in trust for said plaintiff Katie Lins, and that the plaintiff is entitled to an immediate conveyance of said several undivided interests to herself, subject to the dower interest of Theresa, as the widow of said John Lenhardt.

"It is therefore further considered by the court that all the right, title and interest of the defendant, Theresa Lenhardt of, in and to the undivided one fifth of the aforesaid real estate, to wit: Lots 8 and 9 in block 54, lot 28 in block 71, lot 3 in block 20, lots 30 and 31 in block 44, lots 12 and 13 in block 72, lots 14 and 15 in block 30, all in said St. Joseph Extension Addition to the city of St. Joseph, be and the same is hereby divested out of the said defendant, Theresa, and vested in the plaintiff Katie Lins and all the right, title and in interest of the defendant Margaret Lenhardt of, in and to the undivided one fifth part of the aforesaid north half of lot 11 in block 33 in Patee's addition to the city of St. Joseph aforesaid be, and the same is hereby divested out of said defendant and vested in said plaintiff, Katie Lins, to have and to hold unto the said Katie Lins all the undivided fifth of the proceeds aforesaid in fee, as though the said John Lenhardt had died seized in law thereof; and the said defendants and each and all of them are hereby enjoined and restrained from interfering with or encumbering or in anywise disturbing or injuring the right and title of the plaintiffs in said parcels of ground.

"And it is further ordered that the plaintiff Katie Lins be let into possession of said premises as tenant in common with the said Theresa in proportion of the respective titles aforesaid and that a writ of assistance, if demanded, issue to place plaintiff in possession of the interest and estate herein decreed to her.

"It is further ordered that the defendants pay all costs herein accrued and not heretofore adjudged; that the plaintiffs recover of the defendants their costs herein expended and have thereof execution."

From this decree defendants have appealed to this court.

Affirmed.

James W. Boyd for appellants.

(1) The decree is not sustained by the evidence. It is based on an erroneous view of the equity and evidence in the case and ought to be set aside. First. This court will review the whole case on the evidence. Benne v. Schnecko, 100 Mo. 250; McElroy v. Maxwell, 101 Mo. 294. Second. An examination of this case will show to this court that the decree is really against the evidence...