Benn v. Pritchett
| Decision Date | 12 June 1901 |
| Citation | 63 S.W. 1103,163 Mo. 560 |
| Parties | BENN et al. v. PRITCHETT et al., Appellants |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pike Circuit Court. -- Hon. Reuben F. Roy, Judge.
Reversed and remanded (with directions).
Pearson & Pearson for appellants.
(1) There was no contract between William H. Pritchett and Mary E. Pritchett and A. J. Geary for the conveyance of the land in controversy to A. J. Geary. No consideration ever passed from the said Geary to the said Pritchetts, for the making of said deed. The deed was therefore void, and conveyed no interest of the Pritchetts to the said Geary. Of this fact the respondents had due notice, and are not innocent purchasers. (2) In disregarding and overruling the finding of facts made by the jury in this case, the court committed grievous error. The great preponderance of the evidence unquestionably sustained the jury in their findings as to whether Geary procured the deed from Pritchett and his wife by threats amounting to coercion. (3) The plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief in this cause because their petition does not contain facts sufficient to justify the intervention of a court of equity. It is only when on the face of the record there is a cloud on the title that resort to equity may be had. Clark v. Ins. Co., 52 Mo. 276; Mason v. Block, 87 Mo. 345. (4) The defendants were entitled to, and should have been granted, the relief they asked for. If, as we think, the evidence shows and a jury so found the facts to be, that Geary, for their interest in the land in controversy, obtained a deed from defendants by threats which amounted to coercion, and that the plaintiffs or either of them had knowledge that such threats and coercion were used, at the time they purchased, then their purchase was in fraud of these defendants, and their deed should be set aside in so far as it affects the interest of these defendants.
Hostetter & Jones for respondents.
(1) Appellant's counsel persist in treating this case as though it were a question solely between the original parties to the quitclaim deeds, that is, between the defendants and Andrew J. Geary. They blandly ignore the fact that the rights of third parties have intervened, and flippantly and recklessly charge the four plaintiffs, all of whom are reputable, substantial citizens, and honorable business men with fraud and with colluding with "Geary for the purpose of cheating these defendants out of the said property." No motive can be found why any of these defendants should embark in any such fraudulent design against the defendants. Setting up no higher motive for human action than self-interest, it can not be shown that they either profited or expected to profit at defendants' expense. They, of course, bought the land as cheaply as possible, which was certainly very natural, but there is no evidence that the consideration was inadequate. (2) But even if this were a contest between the defendants and Geary without the rights of third parties having intervened, we contend that the force or duress claimed would not amount to sufficient to avoid the deed. "It is generally held that no duress short of that which raises the apprehension of loss of life, limbs or personal liberty will be sufficient to avoid the deed." 5 Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law (1 Ed.), 430; Beach on Contracts, 664; 6 Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law (1 Ed.), 70, 81; Dansch v. Crane, 109 Mo. 323; Campbell v. VanHouten, 44 Mo.App. 231; Cutler v. Zollinger, 117 Mo. 92; Schields v. Hickey, 26 Mo.App. 194. The authorities, as well as common sense, require that a party overreached or victimized into signing an instrument should act promptly and cause the same to be set aside in a reasonable time, at any rate. Davis v. Fox, 59 Mo. 125; 10 Amer. and Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.), 337.
This is a proceeding in equity to cancel a deed, dated December 16, 1895, from Andrew J. Geary to Mary E. and William H. Pritchett, to certain lands in Pike county, Missouri, recorded on December 21, 1897, in book 112 at page 501, of the record of deeds in said county.
The trial disclosed these facts: In 1880 Corben Benn conveyed, by warranty deed, 160 acres of land in township 55 to "Mary E. Pritchett and her bodily heirs." Mrs. Pritchett, is the daughter of said Corben Benn, is the wife of William H. Pritchett, and is one of the defendants in this action. She had then two children, Elizabeth A. and a son named Pate. The daughter, Elizabeth, married Andrew J. Geary. In 1881, Mrs. Pritchett sold the land, thus conveyed by her father, for $ 4,000, and her daughter and son joined her in the deed. In January, 1892, Mrs. Pritchett purchased a farm of about 210 acres near Ashburn, in Salt River township, Pike county, from Samuel L. McGee, and took the title in her own name. She paid $ 5,500 for it. She paid for it by using the $ 4,000 received from the sale of the land her father had deeded her, and by raising the $ 1,500 difference, by a deed of trust on 132 acres of the 210 acres so purchased from McGee. She and her husband then conveyed the 132 acres to their daughter, Elizabeth Geary, subject to the $ 1,500 deed of trust. Mrs. Geary and her husband sold eight acres of the 132 acres so conveyed to Elizabeth, and the balance, 124 acres, was still owned by Elizabeth at the time of her death in October, 1895. The son, Pate, died in March, 1895. After the death of Elizabeth, her parents were both taken sick with typhoid fever and from October to December 16, 1895, were very ill. On December 16, 1895, Mrs. Pritchett was able to be up for awhile every day and could go around the house, but Mr. Pritchett was still confined to his bed and unable to sit up or write his name. Andrew Geary, the son-in-law, lived with his wife on the 124 acres, and continued to reside there after his wife's death. The deed of trust had been reduced to $ 1,104. After his wife's death and during the subsequent long and serious illness of his father and mother-in-law, he was frequently at their house. He says he nursed them through that illness, but his statement is not borne out by the evidence, which establishes the fact that Mrs. Pritchett had a hired girl to nurse her and Mr. Pritchett had a hired man to nurse him, and there was another hired man employed to look after the place. Geary did take his meals at their house, however, but spent most of his time in town. On the sixteenth of December, 1895, Geary took a watch, that had belonged to his wife, from his mother-in-law's room, and refused to return it unless she would make him a deed to her interest in the 124 acres so owned by his wife at the time of her death, and raised a disturbance around the house, and when Mr. and Mrs. Pritchett refused to make such a deed he told them that if they did not make the deed, he would make it "hotter than hell" for them. Finally, about dark that evening, Geary sent for a justice of the peace, and had him prepare two deeds, one from Mr. and Mrs. Pritchett to him for the 124 acres owned by his late wife, and one from him, Geary, to Mr. and Mrs. Pritchett for the same 124 acres and also for all, except about 20 acres, of the remaining part of the land purchased from McGee, on which the Pritchetts resided. Neither party put their deeds on record at once. Geary, however, sold the 124 acres to the plaintiffs herein by deed dated April 10, 1896, and on June 9, 1896, the deed from the Pritchetts to Geary, and the deed from Geary to the plaintiffs, were put on record. The Pritchetts did not record Geary's deed to them until December 21, 1897. But, notwithstanding the denials of the plaintiffs of any knowledge or notice of that deed, there is no room for doubt, upon the testimony preserved by this record, that they not only knew of the deed from Geary to the Pritchetts, but were also personally notified that the Pritchetts claimed that their deed to Geary had been procured by fraud and duress, and that they were further notified and warned that if they bought the land form Geary they would buy a lawsuit. Aside from this direct testimony, the terms of sale clearly establish the charge that the plaintiffs purchased with notice. Those terms were $ 2,500, to pay which the plaintiffs assumed the deed of trust on the land, on which $ 1,104 was still due; paid Geary $ 396 in cash; and gave him their unsecured note for $ 1,000 for the balance of the purchase price, payable at two years, and Geary hypothecated that note with the Frankfort Exchange Bank as collateral security for his note for $ 350, and it was so held at the time of the trial of this case in the circuit court in March, 1898. There is some testimony to the effect that the $ 1,000 represented by the two-year note, was to be used in carrying on any litigation that might ensue. There is also some testimony that the plaintiffs have paid Geary $ 200 on account of the $ 1,000, but it also appears that the plaintiffs are men of means and no reason is given for not having paid the whole amount of the note at maturity, and none can be conjectured, unless the money was to be employed in defending the title.
It also appears that Geary was advised by counsel that his wife and her brother had an interest in the land that had been deeded by Corben Benn to Mary E. Pritchett and her bodily heirs, and hence had an interest in the McGee land which Mrs. Pritchett had purchased with the proceeds of the sale of that land, and that Mrs. Geary had also a further interest in the McGee land in right of her heirship of her brother, Pate, and that upon the death of his wife, without issue, he, as husband, became, under the Act of 1895, entitled to one-half of her said interest, both in the 124 acres deeded to her by her parents, and in her share in the 78 acres upon which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial