Bartlett v. White
| Decision Date | 13 April 1925 |
| Docket Number | 24756 |
| Citation | 272 S.W. 944 |
| Parties | BARTLETT et al. v. WHITE |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Motion for Rehearing Overruled May 23, 1925.
Emil P Rosenberger, of St. Louis, for plaintiffs.
R. L Motley and Hostetter & Haley, all of Bowling Green, for defendant.
This suit involves the title to 160 acres of land in Pike county. The common source of title was George R. White, father of defendant, and grandfather of the two plaintiffs. George R White died intestate on July 19, 1920. He was a widower, and left surviving him as his sole heirs the defendant son, Bruce C. White, and his two grandsons, the plaintiffs, George I. Bartlett and Stemple Wagner, sons of predeceased daughters of George R. White.
Plaintiffs' petition is cast in two counts; the first count being in ejectment for possession of an undivided two-thirds interest of said 160 acres, with damages and rents and profits, and the second count being in partition.
Defendant's answer and cross-bill consists of a general denial, avers that defendant owns all the title to said land, and that George R. White by deed, dated December 11, 1917, duly recorded in Pike county, conveyed said land to defendant. The answer and cross-bill further alleges that beginning with September, 1915, until the date of his death, said George R. White lived continuously on said premises with defendant and his family, during all of which time defendant took care of him and furnished him with a house, and had his washing, ironing and mending done, and attended to all the usual wants and requirements of one of his age; that prior to December, 1917, the said George R. White had frequently expressed the intention and purpose on his part of conveying to defendant the said farm of 160 acres for taking care of him and giving him a home and taking care of him for the remaining period of his life; that said George R. White carried out such purpose and intention by executing and delivering to defendant a deed to said 160 acres; that the consideration for said conveyance was the past services rendered to said George R. White and the further obligation on the part of defendant to continue to furnish a home for said George R. White and to take care of him for the balance of his natural life, and also the assumption of the payment by defendant of a debt of $ 194 and interest secured by deed of trust on said land; that defendant accepted said deed under the terms and obligations imposed upon him, and faithfully carried out and performed all the services, duties, and obligations incumbent on him as aforesaid, and paid off said deed of trust indebtedness, amounting to about $ 220, and continued to furnish said George R. White a home in his family, and took care of him until his death on July 19, 1920; that, in addition to performing all the services and meeting all the obligations which were required of defendant as the consideration for the execution and delivery of said deed, defendant, in the year 1919, remodeled the dwelling house on said premises and equipped it with a modern light plant at a total cost of $ 2,000, and in 1920 dug a deep well on said premises at a cost of $ 514, and constructed fences thereon at a cost of $ 200, and thereby added permanent improvements to said premises of the aggregate value of $ 2,714; that by a mistake of the scrivener, and by reason of errors and irregularities in the description of said farm of 160 acres in old deeds used by the scrivener when he prepared the deed from said George R. White to defendant, two of the 40-acre tracts are incorrectly or inadequately described in said deed; that it was the intent and purpose of said George R. White to convey, and the intent and purpose of defendant to acquire and receive, the title to the 160-acre tract by the correct description thereof; that it was the intent and purpose of the scrivener who prepared said deed to describe the entire 160 acres therein as the same land covered by the correct description, and that the errors and inadequacies in the description of said two 40-acre tracts, as shown by a comparison between the correct description and the incorrect description, were the result of mistake, and should in equity be corrected, and the said deed should be reformed so as to effectuate and carry out the true intent and purpose of the parties to the deed, the said George R. White and defendant; that said deed was executed and delivered to defendant by said grantor of his own free will and accord, and was based on a valuable consideration, and was not procured by fraud, coercion, undue in fluence, or by any unfair or improper means; and that said George R. White at the time of the execution and delivery of said deed, was of sound mind, and was capable of making a deed, and thoroughly understood the nature of the transaction, and that his said deed to defendant is a valid deed -- wherefore defendant prays the court to find the issues on both counts of plaintiffs' petition in favor of defendant, and to find, hold, and adjudicate that neither one of plaintiffs has or owns any interest in said real estate, but that defendant owns the entire title to said real estate, and also to hold and adjudicate said deed from George R. White to defendant to be a valid deed, and to reform said deed, and to correct the description of said 160 acres as set out in said deed so that it will operate as the parties thereto intended, and to vest the title in all the 160 acres as correctly described in defendant, and to divest out of plaintiffs any record title or apparent title they may have in any portion of said 160-acre tract growing out of such erroneous or inadequate description contained in said deed, and for general relief.
Plaintiffs' reply admits that said George R. White, on December 11, 1917, did sign and attempt to go through the formality of acknowledging a certain deed which purports to convey to defendant the land described therein, but that said deed is null and void and of no force and effect, and conveyed no title to defendant, and denies generally the new matter in defendant's answer and crossbill not specifically admitted by the reply. For further reply, plaintiffs allege that said George R. White continued to own said real estate in fee simple up to the time of his death, and that the deed pleaded by defendant in his answer and cross-bill is null and void and of no force and effect, and no title was conveyed to defendant thereby for the reasons: First, the description of the real estate contained in said deed is so vague, uncertain, and indefinite that no title was or could be conveyed thereby; second, that said George R. White at the time of his death was, and for many years prior thereto had been, very aged and infirm, and in a weakened and enfeebled physical and mental condition, and that his mind had become so weakened and impaired from old age and disease that he was readily and easily susceptible to the influence, overpersuasion, and coercion of defendant and his wife, with whom said George R. White had made his home for some time prior to December 11, 1917; that said George R. White had been under the control, dominion, and influence of defendant and his wife, and, as he became weaker, both physically and mentally, more aged and infirm, the defendant and his wife commenced to assume, and did assume, absolute control of said George R. White, and took charge of his business affairs and financial matters, and attended to all business and financial matters that he had, and defendant and his wife could and did persuade said George R. White to do anything they wanted him to do so far as his property and financial matters were concerned, and, on account of his weakened physical and mental condition, said George R. White was unable to resist the request of defendant and his wife to convey said lands to defendant, so that, through the overpersuasion and undue influence of defendant and his wife over said George R. White, they persuaded and induced him, without any adequate consideration, to execute the deed pleaded in defendant's answer and cross-bill, and that said deed was procured by and through the undue influence exerted and exercised over said George R. White by defendant and his wife, and was not his free and voluntary act and deed; third, that said deed was executed without any consideration, and the land in question at the time of the execution of said deed was worth from $ 12,000 to $ 16,000, that defendant paid his father nothing for said deed, and that said attempted conveyance was a gift, pure and simple and testamentary in character, from the father to the son; fourth, that the scrivener who prepared said deed was not the agent or representative of, nor was he acting for and on behalf of, both George R. White and defendant, but said scrivener was the sole agent and representative of, and was doing and performing the business of said George R. White in the preparation of said deed, and said scrivener was employed by George R. White for the purpose of preparation of said deed and taking the acknowledgment thereof; that said deed casts a cloud upon plaintiffs' title to said lands; wherefore, plaintiffs pray for judgment in ejectment and partition, as in their petition, and that the court cancel, set aside, and for naught hold the deed pleaded by defendant in his answer and cross-bill, and for general relief.
The abstract of record is voluminous, but from a careful examination thereof we have gleaned the following facts: On or about June 1, 1904, George R. White became the owner of the 160-acre tract in controversy by virtue of a warranty deed from B. R. Williams and wife, duly acknowledged and recorded on June 17, 1904, for an expressed consideration of $ 4,160, the land...
To continue reading
Request your trial