Bramhall v. Bramhall

• Decision Date: 01 December 1919
• Docket Number: No. 20526.,20526.
• Citation: 216 S.W. 766
• Parties: BRAMHALL v. BRAMHALL et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

216 S.W. 766

BRAMHALL v. BRAMHALL et al.

No. 20526.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

December 1, 1919.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sullivan County; Fred Lamb, Judge.

Suit by Robert M. Bramhall against Hiram W. Bramhall and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and certain defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Higbee & Mills, of Lancaster, for appellants.

N. A. Franklin and J. C. McKinley, both of Unionville, for respondent.

GOODE, J.

This suit was to reform a deed made by John P. Bramhall, one of the defendants, and his wife Edyth Walcott Bramhall, to plaintiff, on December 5, 1903, to divest the defendants of any title or interest in the premises conveyed by said deed, and to have ascertained and determined the estate, title, and interest of all the parties to the action in and to said premises. Such, in substance, is the prayer of the petition.

The land involved is in Putnam county (where the action was filed), and comprised about 176 acres. The suit was subsequently transferred by change of venue to Sullivan county, where it was tried and resulted in a judgment for plaintiff.

There are eight defendants, all of them children of plaintiff; but only three of them answered in the case, the others having previously executed quitclaim deeds to relinquish to plaintiff whatever interests they had acquired by the deed from John P. Bramhall to plaintiff, of which reformation is asked.

The court made detailed findings of the facts, but we do not consider it necessary to set out these findings in full.

Plaintiff and his second wife, Althea Bramhall, were unable to live together in peace, and in September, 1902, agreed to separate, and agreed also upon terms of separation. She consented to accept $300 which was paid to her on some day in that month, and on the same day (which is not stated in the record) she and her husband (the plaintiff) executed and delivered to the defendant John Bramhall a conveyance of the land involved in this suit. Her testimony about that transaction is as follows:

"Q. You settled with Uncle Robert, and he paid you the $300? A. Yes; he did.

"Q. And that was before you made this deed, you and Mr. Bramhall, to John? A. Yes; he paid me when I signed the deed.

"Q. He paid you before you signed the deed, didn't he? A. No; he didn't.

"Q. All done there together at the same time? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. And that was what you and he agreed on? A. Yes."

That testimony Is quoted, for the reason that it is contended (although no defense of fraud in the transaction is pleaded) the conveyance by plaintiff to his son John was for the purpose of defrauding plaintiff's wife; and so John P. Bramhall testified. He stated, among other things:

"I understood that he was attempting to defraud her (meaning the wife of plaintiff) out of her interest in this property.

"Q. And you were helping him; did you make yourself a party to that? A. Knowing and understanding that it was made to me, for the purpose of protecting the other members of the family."

John Barnett, the justice of the peace who took the acknowledgment of the deed by which plaintiff and his wife conveyed to John P. Bramhall, testified the deed was made when plaintiff and his wife were on the eve of separating, and when they—

"were settling the property question between themselves; that he paid over to her for plaintiff the amount which they had agreed she should receive."

John P. Bramhall was at the time a lawyer, living at Highland, Putnam county, and plaintiff testified his son John represented that, notwithstanding the settlement, plaintiff's wife later would demand more from him, and persuaded him, against his first inclination, to convey the land to his said son; he relying on the knowledge, of the latter as an attorney and having confidence in his honesty. On the other hand, John says the deed was made at the request of his father, but admits advising the latter about it. He testified regarding what transpired when the deed was executed, namely, at the very time of the settlement with Althea Bramhall:

That nothing was then discussed; "the whole thing had been discussed before, and the question about what should go in it, or what it should be made for, was concluded before the acknowledgment was taken there, and before Mr. Barnett came down to take the acknowledgment."

The testimony of plaintiff, who was corroborated by the subsequent acts, and in a measure by the testimony of John P. Bramhall, was that it was agreed John Bramhall should reconvey the land to plaintiff after he had procured a divorce from his wife; that before conveying to John he demanded of the latter a bond to reconvey, but John put him off, saying he would give the bond later; there was no hurry.

Barnett, the justice of the peace, stated in answer to a question about John's executing a bond to reconvey:

"Mr. Bramhall spoke about his giving bond for making the return deed.

"Q. Well, what did John Bramhall say to that? A. He said we'd hardly have time at the present time, but that he would do it later."

Barnett further said he understood, from the talk which occurred between the parties when he took the acknowledgment of plaintiff and his wife to the deed to John Bramhall, that the latter was to reconvey to his father.

Plaintiff obtained a decree of divorce November 27, 1903, and afterwards requested his son John to reconvey the land to him, and pursuant to said request John Bramhall and his wife, Edyth W. Bramhall, on December 5, 1903, signed and acknowledged a deed conveying the land involved in this action, not to the plaintiff in fee simple, but to him "and the heirs of his body forever." Soon thereafter, and after this deed had been recorded, plaintiff learned John P. Bramhall's deed had not conveyed a fee simple to plaintiff, but an estate for life to him, with remainders over in his children; and thereupon, on January 25, 1904, he wrote to John, complaining there was too much in the deed. On receiving this complaint John P. Bramhall and wife executed a second deed, dated January 30, 1904, and acknowledged February 2d, by which they released and quitclaimed their interest in the land to plaintiff, reciting that said second deed was made—

"for the purpose of correcting a deed from said first parties to said second party, dated December 5, 1903, and recorded in Book 8 of Quitclaim Deeds, at page 34, of Putnam county, Missouri, records, as in writing said deed the granting clause by clerical error says: `Is hereby granted to said party of the second part and to the heirs of his body forever' (instead of to said second party, his heirs and assigns)."

The second deed was preceded by a letter, signed "John P. Bramhall and wife," and admitted by the former to have been written by him, wherein he said the conveyance of only a life estate by John P. Bramhall's first deed could be easily corrected by another deed, which he would make, and that no suit to correct the first one was necessary, promising to make the deed of correction when he obtained the description of the land. The second deed was accompanied by a letter, signed by John P. Bramhall and which he admitted writing, wherein he said the second deed "will complete your [i. e., plaintiff's] title just as it was before you were married"; further, that the first deed was not written by John P., but by the typist of Mr. Ferris, to whom John P. gave the description, and that the typist had followed the form of another deed, "and that will account for the error." John Bramhall testified over and over again that he made the second deed, and wrote the accompanying letter, simply to "appease" his father; "just to appease him; that was all, because I knew the time would come when these children at home would thrust him out, and he would have to live on the government."

From the time the second deed was made until February, 1916, a few months before the present action was instituted, plaintiff supposed the second deed from John P. conveyed the fee-simple title and had left no interest outstanding in any of his children. He only learned of his error when he attempted to obtain a loan on the property for a prospective purchaser who needed a loan in order to make the purchase. Meanwhile plaintiff had been continuously in possession of the land, claiming title in fee, as he had been since 1873.

The finding below of a mistake in the quantity of the estate conveyed by John Bramhall's first deed (or the one of December 5, 1903), was as follows:

"Acting on said request [plaintiff's request to reconvey] said defendant executed and delivered to plaintiff a deed conveying said lands to plaintiff and the heirs of his body, when it was mutually intended to convey to plaintiff the title in fee to said land; said deed being dated December 5, 1903, and recorded in Quitclaim Deed Record, book 8, at page 34, in the office of recorder of deeds in Putnam county, Missouri."

The court adjudged that the deed of December 5, 1903, be corrected and reformed, so as to convey the fee-simple title to the lands described in and to the plaintiff; further adjudging that such title be vested in the plaintiff, to have and to hold to him and his heirs forever, and that defendants, and each of them, be divested of any right, title, or interest, present or future, in and to the lands, and be forever barred from having or claiming any right, title, or interest.

David S., Alexander I., and Jarnada D. Bramhall appealed; the other defendants having previously relinquished their interests to plaintiff.

I. The second quitclaim deed of John P....