Blount v. Spratt

• Decision Date: 19 December 1892
• Citation: 113 Mo. 48,20 S.W. 967
• Parties: BLOUNT v. SPRATT et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

20 S.W. 967

113 Mo. 48

BLOUNT v. SPRATT et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

December 19, 1892.

EQUITY — REVIEW ON APPEAL — FINDINGS OF FACT — EXCEPTIONS — CANCELLATION OF DEED — INSANITY OF GRANTOR.

1. The supreme court has exercised for a long time the right to supervise the findings of fact of the trial court in equity cases, and it was not the intention of the legislature to abrogate this right by Rev. St. 1889, § 2135, providing that the trial court, when requested by one of

the parties for the purpose of taking exceptions, shall state in writing the conclusions of fact, found separately from the conclusions of law.

2. Where the conclusions of fact found are not merely in writing, but also incorporated into the judgment, no exceptions are necessary in order to authorize the supreme court to review the conclusions of law reached by the trial court on the facts found, since the findings stand as a special verdict or an agreed case; and, unless the conclusions of law on the facts found are correct, the judgment will be reversed.

3. In a suit to enjoin defendants from selling land under a deed of trust because plaintiff was insane when she made the deed, on which account the deed was void, the court found specially that plaintiff was insane when the deed was made, but that the defendants did not know it, and that the contract was made by them in good faith. As conclusion of law the court found that a decree should be entered as prayed for. Held, that the court erred in its conclusions of law, since courts of equity will not interfere to set aside such a contract where injustice will thereby be done to the other side, and the parties cannot be placed in statu quo.

Appeal from circuit court, Buchanan county; HENRY M. RAMEY, Judge.

Suit by Elizabeth F. Blount, by William C. Frame, guardian, against William E. Spratt and others, to enjoin defendants from selling land under a deed of trust void by reason of plaintiff's insanity. Injunction granted. Defendants appeal. Reversed.

Hall & Pike, for appellants, in support of the proposition that defendants, having acted in good faith, and without knowledge of plaintiff's incapacity, could not avoid the deed without tendering back the consideration received, cited Boyer v. Berryman, 123 Ind. 451, 24 N. E. Rep. 249, and cases cited; Copenrath v. Kienby, 83 Ind. 18; Eaton v. Eaton, 37 N. J. Law, 108; Riggan v. Green, 80 N. C. 236; 1 Story, Eq. Jur. § 228; 2 Pom. Eq. Jur. § 946; 11 Amer. & Eng. Enc. Law, 136; Wirebach v. Bank, 97 Pa. St. 549; Beals v. See, 10 Pa. St. 56-61; Gribben v. Maxwell, 34 Kan. 8, 7 Pac. Rep. 584; Insurance Co. v. Hunt, 79 N. Y. 541; Burnham v. Kidwell, 113 Ill. 425.

Porter & Woodson, for respondent.

MACFARLANE, J.

This is a suit to enjoin defendants from selling under a deed of trust a tract of 120 acres of land, belonging to plaintiff, on the ground that she was insane when she executed the deed, and it was therefore void. The petition charges, in substance, that in the year 1881 plaintiff was the wife of Henry P. Blount, and was, and still is, the owner of 120 acres of land, (describing it,) and was at that time, and ever since has been, and still is, of unsound mind, and wholly incapable of transacting business; that on the 27th day of April, 1888, she joined her husband in executing a deed of trust, conveying said land to defendant Spratt to secure the payment to Thomas Ashton of a note of the said Henry C. Blount for $400, due one year after date; that the said trustee was threatening a sale of said land under the power contained in said deed. An injunction was prayed, and that the deed of trust be canceled as to said land. The answer admitted that plaintiff and Henry Blount were husband and wife, and that they executed the deed of trust to secure said note of the husband, but denied all other allegations. The answer set up affirmatively, in substance, that the land in question was bought by the husband of plaintiff, who paid in part therefor with his own means, and he and his wife executed a deed of trust on the land to secure deferred payments, and that part of the money loaned, and for which the $400 in question was given, was used in payment of a balance due on the note given for said purchase money, and secured by said first deed of trust.

After hearing the evidence, none of which is preserved by bill of exceptions at the request of defendants, the court stated in writing the conclusions of facts found as follows: "(1) Elizabeth F. Blount and Henry P. Blount were husband and wife. That on the 2d day of December, 1888, said Henry P. Blount died, and on the _____ day of December, 1888, said Elizabeth F. Blount was by the probate court of Buchanan county, Missouri, adjudged insane, and incapable of managing her business affairs, and the said Wm. C. Frame was duly appointed guardian and curator of her person and estate, and duly qualified and took charge of her person and estate, and has since been, and is now, in charge and control of the same." (2) The court, after finding that in 1881 plaintiff, Elizabeth Blount, became the owner of the land mentioned in the petition, made statements of facts as to special matters set up in the answer, which need not be given, and proceeded: "(3) That on the 27th day of April, 1888, the said Henry P. Blount borrowed of defendant Ashton $400, and executed and delivered to him his promissory note for that sum, and to secure the payment of said note said Henry P. and his wife, Elizabeth, signed and delivered the deed of trust to defendant Spratt, mentioned in the petition and evidence. Said deed of trust included and covered the said Elizabeth's one hundred and twenty acres of land mentioned in the petition, and other lands belonging to said Henry P. Blount. * * * (4) The court further finds that at the time said Elizabeth F. Blount signed said deed of trust on her said one hundred and twenty acres of land to secure the payment to said Ashton of said $400 note she was of unsound mind, and so insane as to be unable to understand the nature or character of said transaction, and was, on account thereof, incapable and incompetent to make a contract or deed. (5) The court further finds that at the commencement of this suit the defendant Spratt, at the request of the defendant Ashton, had advertised and was preparing to enforce said deed of trust, and sell said Elizabeth's real estate, mentioned in the petition, to satisfy and pay said $400 note. (6) That at the time said Ashton loaned to said Henry P. said $400, and took said note and mortgage, he acted in good faith, and without any knowledge of the insanity of said Elizabeth F. Blount." The court then stated its conclusions of law upon these facts, as follows: "The court concludes that upon the facts found as aforesaid, the law is with the...