Morriso v. Philliber

• Decision Date: 31 March 1860
• Citation: 30 Mo. 145
• Parties: MORRISO, Defendant in Error, v. PHILLIBER, Plaintiff in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

30 Mo. 145

MORRISO, Defendant in Error,

v.PHILLIBER, Plaintiff in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1860.

1. Inadequacy of consideration for the conveyance of land is not, of itself a sufficient ground of relief, unless it is so gross as to raise a presumption of fraud.

2. Where a person, owning real estate of the value of three thousand five hundred dollars, but who had no knowledge of its value, was illiterate, being able neither to read nor write, was induced by a person, in whom she had confidence and who acted in a double capacity as agent for both parties, to dispose of said real estate to another for seventy-five dollars; held, that the transaction was stamped with fraud, and the facts would warrant a decree setting aside the conveyance on the ground of fraud.

Error to St. Louis Circuit Court.

The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.

D. C. Woods, for plaintiff in error, cited the following authorities: 12 Mo. 157; 14 Mo. 580; 17 Mo. 209, 228; 19 Mo. 423; 23 Mo. 188, 579; 24 Mo. 167; 19 Ves. 131; 11 Wheat. 125; 2 Sto. Eq. § 697; 3 Ves. 368; 11 Ves. 535; 2 Jac. & Walk. 391; Story on Ag. 14.

B. A. Hill, for defendants in error.

I. The inadequacy of consideration is such in this case as to shock the moral sense of any man, and amount in itself to conclusive and decisive evidence of fraud. (Sto. Eq. § 246; 9 Ves. 246; 10 Ves. 219; 2 Madd. Ch. 556; Jacob, 280; 16 Ves. 512; 1 Brown's Ch. 9; 2 Johns. Ch. 1, 23; 14 Johns. 527.) There are other circumstances in the case; Julie's ignorance, the peculiar relations between her and Mulholland, servant and master. In such case, the gross inadequacy of price must necessarily furnish the most conclusive presumption of fraud. (2 Ves. sr., 516; 14 Ves. 273.) Mulholland was the agent for both Julie and the buyer. (2 Camp. 203; 5 B. & Ald. 333; Sto. Eq. § 210; White & Tudor's Lea. Ca. in Eq. 129, 141.)

EWING, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant in error, Julie Morriso, filed her bill to set aside a deed executed by her to Philliber for certain real estate in the city of St. Louis, which she alleges was procured by fraud. There was a decree accordingly, and the title to the property vested in the plaintiff. The defendant filed his motion for a new trial, which being overruled, he brings the cause to this court by writ of error. The cause was tried under the practice act of 1849, and there was a finding of facts by the court. And the question for our consideration is, whether the facts as found were warranted by the evidence, and, if so, authorized the conclusion of law and the judgment of the court thereon.

It was admitted by the parties and the court found that Moses Yeina married Julie Morriso on the 1st January, 1858, and that the lot in question, on the corner of Green and Fifth streets, was worth the sum of five thousand dollars on the 13th of March, 1850; that Henry T. Baccus was the agent of James K. Philliber at the time of procuring of said deed from Julie Morriso to Philliber on the 13th March, 1850; and from the evidence in the cause the court found that said Julie, on the 11th March, 1837, was an infant of the age of fourteen years; that said Julie, on the 13th March, 1850, was a widow, living in the state of Michigan, where she had lived ever since she left St. Louis, which was about the year 1837, except a year or so that she lived at Fort Wayne, Indiana; that William Morriso, her first husband, was then dead; that at the time of the execution of said deed by Julie to Philliber of the 13th March, 1850, one Samuel Mulholland acted as the agent of said Julie for the sale of her interest in said premises, described in deed of 13th March, 1850, to Philliber, and at the same time acted as the agent of said Philliber in making the purchase of said premises--the said Mulholland having been employed by said Baccus, who was the agent of defendant; that said Julia had been a servant for said Mulholland in his family before the said time, and was greatly under his influence and control; that Mulholland received from defendant's agent, Baccus, on behalf of the defendant, the sum of twenty-five dollars for procuring the said Julie to make the said deed to defendant, and paid over to said Julie as the consideration of said deed, the sum of seventy-five dollars; that the said Julie was ignorant of the value of said lot of land; had no correct knowledge thereof; could not read or write, and had lived near said Mulholland's place in Michigan from the time she was sixteen years old (except a short time at Fort Wayne) until the year 1850; that at the time of the negotiation for the execution of said deed, Mulholland, acting as the agent for both parties, represented to said Julie that the premises might be sold for taxes and that would embarrass the title, and did not disclose to her the value of her interest in said lot before the execution of said deed of March, 1850; that said deed was procured by the agents of defendant from said Julie, and she executed the same for a grossly inadequate consideration. Upon these facts the deed was...