Bowles v. Wathan

• Decision Date: 31 October 1873
• Citation: 54 Mo. 261
• Parties: WALTER BOWLES, Appellant, v. THEODORE B. WATHAN, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

54 Mo. 261

WALTER BOWLES, Appellant,

v.THEODORE B. WATHAN, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1873.

Appeal from St. Charles Circuit Court.

Theodore Bruere and King & McDearmon, for Appellant.

I. The defendant in concealing from plaintiff the fact, only known to himself, that it was almost certain his wife would die in a short time, committed a fraud upon the plaintiff in procuring a deed of gift to his wife, which therefore, contrary to the intention of the grantor, must result and did result to his own benefit. (3 Wh. & Tud. Cas. in Eq., 141, 143; Huguenin vs. Baseley, 14 Ves., 299; Lyon vs. Home, 6 Eq. Cas. [Law], 655; Sears vs. Shaper, 6 N. Y., 268; Tyler vs. Gardiner 35 N. Y., 559.)

II. As to what constitutes in law undue influence. (1 Sto. Eq. Jur., 264-271; 3 Lead. Cas. Eq., 125, 127; 9 How., 552; 8 How., 183; 44 Mo., 465; 46 Mo., 147; 48 Mo., 483; 50 Mo., 206.)

III. Deeds excuted under undue influence must be set aside. (1 Sto. Eq. Jur., 264-271; 3 Lead. Cas. Eq., 125, 127, 136, 137, 140, 145; 8 How., 183; 44 Mo., 465; 46 Mo., 167; 48 Mo., 483; 14 Ves., 299.)

IV. Very little proof is required when a person is of extreme age, especially when the deed is obtained without consideration. (1 Sto. Eq. Jur., 264-271; 44 Mo., 465; 46 Mo., 147; 48 Mo., 483; 50 Mo. 206;)

V. That the donor is at the time of the gift a member of the donee's family, and residing in the same house, is proof of moral duress and undue influence. (Poston vs. Gillespie, 5 Jones Eq., 258; Taylor vs. Taylor, 8 How., 183; Espey vs. Lake, 10 Hare, 262.)

E. A. Lewis, for Respondent.

I. The deed was in fact effectually delivered immediately after the marriage of plaintiff's daughter, about four years before the transaction which is here set up as a delivery under “undue influence.” (Folly vs. Vantuyl, 4 Halst., 153; Sonverbye vs. Arden, 1 Johns' Ch., 240; Chess vs. Chess, 1 Penn., 32; Scrugham vs. Wood, 15 Wend., 545.)

Orrick & Emmons, for Respondent.

1. Old age of itself does not disqualify a person from making a valid deed, and being compos mentis he could legally be a disposer of his property, and his will stands for a reason. (1 Sto. Eq. Jur., 244; 7 Iowa, 60; 26 Wend., 255.)

ADAMS, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action to set aside a deed, upon the alleged ground that it had been obtained by undue influence exercised by the defendant and his deceased wife over the mind of plaintiff. The answer denied all the material allegations of the petition. After a final hearing, the court dismissed the petition, and from this judgment the plaintiff has appealed to this court. The leading facts are about as follows: The plaintiff is eighty-three years old. In 1865 he made a partial distribution of his property. To each of his children he gave a deed for certain lands. The defendant's wife was his pet child, and he made a deed of his homestead to her, but retained it in his possession, and intended to retain it till his death. The defendant lived in Kentucky, and married this pet child in 1866, and the morning after his marriage the plaintiff exhibited the deed he was holding for his wife, and told him they should have that property at his death, and he wanted them to come and take charge of the place and live on it. The defendant replied, that he had an engagement in Kentucky, which would detain them for one year, and that, as soon as his engagement expired, he would return with his wife, and at the expiration of his engagement he did return with his wife and took possession of the premises, and remained there making improvements, etc., for several years. After being there for some time, he and his wife learned that it was claimed that they had no more interest in the premises than the other children; and the defendant's wife commenced importuning the plaintiff for the delivery of the deed. They threatened to remove from the place unless the deed should be delivered. The plaintiff resisted for some time, but finally compromised the matter by delivering the deed and taking back from the defendant and his wife a deed for a part of the land for life, including the improvements. In the course of six months or so, the defendant's wife had a child, and died in her confinement. Before her confinement she made a will in favor of her husband and the child with which she was then enciente, devising the land covered by the deed in dispute to them. A short time after its birth, the child also died, leaving the defendant as the only heir at law. After the death of the child, the plaintiff complained that the deed in dispute was obtained by undue influence exercised over him by his daughter and her husband. At the time of the delivery of the deed, he shed tears, but had received a letter from one of his children, and the witness did not know, whether it was the delivery of the deed, or the news in the letter, that caused him to weep. These are the main facts as detailed in the evidence. It is manifest, from...