Ennis v. Burnham
Decision Date | 12 February 1901 |
Citation | 159 Mo. 494,60 S.W. 1103 |
Parties | ENNIS et al. v. BURNHAM et al. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
A daughter and her husband went to live with her mother and father on the latter's farm, for the purpose of caring for them; the mother being an invalid, and the father aged 78. About three weeks later the son-in-law, accompanied the father to a lawyer's office, and the father, in the absence of the son-in-law, stated he wished a writing drawn, as he was too feeble to care for himself, and he wished to pay his son-in-law to do it. The lawyer suggested that he probably wished a deed, and one was drawn with the provision that, in consideration of one dollar, the son-in-law and his wife should care for the grantor and his wife during their lives. The lawyer read the deed to the grantor twice, because of his hesitation. The lawyer testified that the grantor did not convey to him very clearly whether he wished to convey a fee or the life estate, and the lawyer did not explain that it conveyed a fee. Twelve days later the son-in-law procured a county judge to call at the farm to take the acknowledgment. The mother stated that she knew it was a deed to the place. The farm was worth between $6,000 and $8,000. The support of the grantors was to come largely therefrom, and the father had other children. Held, that the deed would be set aside as procured by undue influence.
Appeal from circuit court, Howard county: John A. Hockaday, Judge.
Suit by Sarah Ennis and others against William B. Burnham and others. From a decree in favor of complainants, defendants Burnham appeal. Affirmed.
A. W. Walker and W. M. Williams, for appellants. Sam C. Major and Crawley & Son, for respondents.
This is an appeal by the defendants William B. Burnham and his wife, Rhoda M. Burnham, from a decree of the circuit court of Howard county setting aside and annulling a warranty deed executed by Ephraim Snavely and his wife, Julia F. Snavely, parties of the first part, dated April 24, 1895, by them duly acknowledged on the 6th of May, 1895, and filed for record on the 5th of June, 1896, whereby said Snavely and wife conveyed to the said William B. and Rhoda Burnham, parties of the second part, a tract of land containing 189 acres, situate in Howard county, and particularly described in the decree and petition, for the expressed consideration of "one dollar," and the further consideration — upon the ground, as stated in the decree, "that said Ephraim Snavely at the time of the execution of said deed was an old and decrepit man, feeble in body and mind, and without sufficient mental capacity to fully comprehend the transaction in which he was then engaged; that said deed is not supported by a fair and adequate consideration; and that said deed was procured to be executed by the exercise of undue influence over said Ephraim Snavely by the grantees in said deed named." It appears from the evidence that the said Ephraim Snavely died intestate on the 7th of July, 1896; that he had been twice married; that the plaintiffs are his children and the children of a deceased child by his first wife, and the defendants are his children and the children of a deceased child by his second wife; that for many years prior to the 24th of April, 1895, the said Ephraim had been the owner in fee simple of the land described in the deed aforesaid of that date, and had occupied the same as a homestead on which he had reared his numerous progeny, consisting of ten children (five by his first and five by his second wife), all of whom before that time had grown up, married, and removed from the homestead, leaving him and his second wife, the said Julia, who was then an invalid, and who died in the month of April, 1896, and their hired house servant, the only occupants of the homestead; that at the time of the execution of said deed the said Snavely was about 78 years old; that he had some years before ceased farming the homestead, which was the only real estate he owned, and which was worth between six and eight thousand dollars, disposed of most of his stock and farming implements, and rented the land to tenants, the income from which source, and from some money, — probably about $1,500, — which he had out at interest, provided a sufficient support for himself and wife; that he was then, and for some years previous had been afflicted with chronic diarrhea, a kidney disease, and inflammation of the bladder, that necessitated the drawing of his urine by mechanical means most of the time. These physical ailments grew worse as he grew older, and finally resulted in his death. The effect that they had produced upon his mind and body at the time the deed in question was executed is illustrated by the following extracts from the evidence collated by counsel for the respondents:
Mr. Evans, one of his neighbors, testifies:
Concerning his mental condition, Dr. Hume says:
Dr. W. C. Harvey, who had known him for 50 years, testifies that up to four or five years before his death Mr. Snavely was a vigorous man, but that during the last three, four, or five years his mind had become so much impaired through the diseases of his body that his mental as well as physical weakness was apparent to one who knew him, without having to converse with him. This witness further considered that Mr. Snavely could be easily influenced during the last years of his life.
Mrs. Evans, a daughter of Mr. Snavely's first marriage, testified:
Mrs. Hopper, another daughter, testifies: The witness then relates a number of incidents, beginning as early as 1894. At one time he would spend an hour in his stable on a hot day, painfully gathering up small wisps of hay from the ground to feed a horse that already stood in easy reach of a large quantity. At another time "he would sit down at the table with mother and me and the girls, and would take the meat dish up in his hands and put all the meat out of the dish on his own plate, and then he would laugh like a real silly person." On yet another occasion, in 1895, after an absence of a couple of weeks, Mrs. Hopper went over to see her father, and he did not recognize her.
Mrs. A. D. Simmons, a near neighbor, testifies to a habit of roving which Mr. Snavely acquired a year or two before his death. She says: "None of the children lived there, but they looked after him all the time; and whenever he was out of his seat they would look after him, and if he was not in sight they would ring the bell, and the neighbors would come and help hunt for him."
Mrs. Sarah Ennis, his eldest daughter, who since 1893 has resided in Nevada, Mo., and saw her father infrequently after that, testifies:
Capt. S. B. Cunningham, an acquaintance for 50 years, after describing him as having once been a stout, able-bodied, resolute man, speaks of meeting Mr. Snavely in the summer of 1895 near Mr. Snavely's house. The latter was out in the road, bareheaded, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cook v. Higgins
...75. (8) Inadequacy of consideration where the parties are not on equal terms is a badge of fraud. Brown v. Slaton, 189 S.W. 1130; Ennis v. Burnham, 159 Mo. 494; Dowell Edwards, 161 S.W. 534; Mott v. Mott, 22 A. 997. (9) There was no reason for making the deed as the old lady's income was su......
-
Ulrich v. Zimmerman
...plaintiffs were entitled to a finding and decree in their favor. Dingman v. Romine, 141 Mo. 466; Martin v. Baker, 135 Mo. 495; Ennis v. Burnham, 159 Mo. 494; Hurley v. Kennally, 206 Mo. 282; Jones v. Belshe, 238 Mo. 524; Cook v. Higgins, 290 Mo. 402; Kroening v. Goehri, 20 S.W. 661; Morris ......
-
Johnson v. Johnson, 7574
...629, 86 N.E. 1107, 1109; see also Irwin v. Sample, 213 Ill. 160, 72 N.E. 687; Roby v. Colehour, 135 Ill. 300, 25 N.E. 777; Ennis v. Burnham, 159 Mo. 494, 60 S.W. 1103. In Kirschner v. Kirschner, 113 Mo. 290, 297, 20 S.W. 791, 792 it is 'Where one person has acquired over another a position ......
-
Burgdorf v. Keeven
...of the injured party or his heirs, set the conveyance aside. Cadwallader v. West, 48 Mo. 483; Allore v. Jewell, 94 U.S. 506; Ennis v. Burnham, 159 Mo. 494; McClure Lewis, 72 Mo. 314; Martin v. Baker, 135 Mo. l. c. 504; Kencer v. Kencer, 246 Mo. 419; Soureal v. Wisner, 13 S.W.2d 548; Grundma......