Dingman v. Romine

• Decision Date: 23 November 1897
• Citation: 42 S.W. 1087,141 Mo. 466
• Parties: DINGMAN et al. v. ROMINE et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

42 S.W. 1087

141 Mo. 466

DINGMAN et al. v. ROMINE et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

November 23, 1897.

CANCELLATION OF DEED — UNDUE INFLUENCE.

A deed will be set aside on the grounds of fraud and undue influence where no money was paid, and the grantor was an old man, blind, partially deaf, afflicted with disease, and almost helpless, and had been taken care of and nursed by the grantee and her husband for 10 years prior to his death, for which they had been paid, and they had a great influence over him, and grantee's husband did all his business, though he believed his children had driven him from home and neglected him.

Appeal from circuit court, Bates county; James H. Lay, Judge.

Action by James J. and Melvin C. Dingman against Margaret and James C. Romine. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Graves & Clark and T. W. Silvers, for appellants. H. W. Currey and J. S. Francisco, for respondents.

MACFARLANE, J.

Plaintiffs, James J. and Melvin C. Dingman, as sole heirs of Jacob P. Dingman, deceased, sue the defendants, Margaret and James C. Romine, to set aside two deeds, — one executed and delivered by the said deceased to defendant Margaret Romine on the 11th day of July, 1889, by which he conveyed to her a tract of 150 acres of land in Bates county for the expressed consideration of one dollar and uniform kindness and motherly care; the other a deed from the said Margaret to her son, the defendant James C. Romine, dated January 2, 1892, for an expressed consideration of $2,400, conveying the same land to him. The petition charges that the first of said deeds was without consideration, and was the result of the coercion, fraud, and undue influence of the said Margaret and her husband, Jesse Romine, and of one D. S. Snyder, over the grantor, the said Jacob P. Dingman; and further, that the said Jacob P. Dingman had not sufficient capacity to make a deed, and that the latter of said deeds was accepted by the grantee with notice thereof. The answer admitted the execution and delivery of said deeds, but denied all other allegations of the petition. A trial of the facts resulted in a finding by the court "that plaintiffs are the only heirs of Jacob P. Dingman, deceased; that the warranty deed executed by the said Jacob P. Dingman dated July 11, 1889, was obtained by the said Margaret Romine by undue influence, and was without consideration, and the said James C. Romine accepted his deed from the said Margaret without paying any consideration therefor, and with notice of his grantor's fraud."

The evidence shows that at about the year 1874 Jacob P. Dingman lived with his wife and plaintiffs, his two children, then nine or ten years of age. He was, at the time, advanced in years, and nearly blind, partially deaf, and otherwise afflicted with disease. In his condition he was unable to work of earn a support for his family, and lived in great poverty. About this time the wife and children secured homes in the families of neighbors, and he left that neighborhood, and was thereafter, until 1887, supported by the county. He was taken care of by two or three families for a year or more each, the county paying his board, until about 1882, when he was taken into the family of Jesse Romine and his wife, Margaret, both of whom appear to have been old people. He lived in this family until his death, which occurred about 1892. The county paid the Romine people for keeping him as long as he remained a pauper. It appears that Dingman had been a Union soldier in the Civil War, and, some time previous to making his home with the Romines, he had made application for a pension, but up to that time he had not been able to have it allowed. D. S. Snyder was employed in some capacity to assist him in securing his pension. In 1887 a pension of $72 per month was allowed, and for arrearages he was paid $12,500. Out of this amount he paid Snyder $6,000. He expended about $500 in building a dwelling house on Romine's land, and bought the farm in question, paying therefor about $2,200. In 1887 he made his will, by which he gave to one of his sons $500, to the other $10, and the residue of his estate he gave to Mrs. Romine. Romine thereafter received the pension quarterly, and for a time retained one-half as compensation for boarding and caring for the pensioner, and thereafter he retained the whole of it for the same services. At the time Dingman went to Romine's to live, he had become totally blind, his deafness had greatly increased, and his other afflictions had rendered him about helpless. He was confined to his room and bed almost constantly from about 1887 to his death, and required the constant care and attention of a child. Mr. and Mrs. Romine and their son James, waited upon and nursed him. Most of his business was transacted by Mr. Romine. He had great confidence in his family, and regarded the members as his only friends. The evidence shows that they treated him with kindness and consideration. As one of the witnesses says, they cared for him as for a child. Dingman had the impression that he had been badly treated by his sons, particularly James. He so expressed himself frequently. To him he only gave $10. The reason for his disinheritance he gives in his will. In item 4 he says: "To my son James Judithan Dingman, of whose whereabouts and condition I know nothing, sadly remembering his ever-seeming want of affection and continued discourtesies and disrespectful conduct in his early manhood, and his gross and wanton neglect of me after I had become aged and infirm, I give and bequeath the sum of ten dollars only." There was no other evidence than Dingman's statements to show the truth of the facts stated in the will. Both of the plaintiffs testified as witnesses. They state that their father, before leaving home, put them in families to live. They grew up without education, one of them saying he had not been to school a day. Early in life they went out to work for a living. They worked for wages at different places in Missouri and Kansas, until the trial. One of them said that at one time he was worth about $50. They say that from the day their father left home until after his death they never heard from him directly, though it was reported to them that he was dead, and they believed the report. Their mother died in a few years after their father left home. There was no evidence whatever of the circumstances under which the deed was made, though there was evidence that Dingman said, before he received his pension, that he intended to build Mr. Romine a house, and buy this tract of land for his wife. In connection with his expressions of gratitude to the Romine family, he generally spoke of the mistreatment he had received from his boys.

On the question of the mental capacity of Dingman there was a conflict in the evidence; some witnesses saying he was as helpless, mentally and physically, as a child, while others thought his mind good, considering his physical condition. All the witnesses, with one or two exceptions, agree that physically he was absolutely helpless, and required constant care. Defendant James Romine testified that the amount of the pension — $72 per month — was not more than adequate compensation for nursing, washing, and caring for him. These services were all performed by the Romine family, and, so far as appears, faithfully performed. There is no doubt, from the evidence, that Dingman had the greatest confidence in and affection for Mr. and Mrs. Romine, and that they deserved his gratitude, if the services were unselfish, and purely works of charity. If prompted by selfish motives, they were entitled to ample compensation. So far as concerns the conveyance from Mrs. Dingman to her son James, there is no question but that he had full notice of all the circumstances under which the land was conveyed to her, nor does he attempt to prove any consideration therefor. Appellants assign no error to the finding of the court on this issue. The court found that the conveyance in question was procured by means of undue influence exercised by the Romine family and Snyder over the mind and will of Dingman. No finding in respect to the mental capacity of the...