Bray v. Haskins

• Decision Date: 09 April 1921
• Docket Number: No. 21800.,21800.
• Citation: 229 S.W. 1074
• Parties: BRAY v. HASKINS et. al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

229 S.W. 1074

BRAY v. HASKINS et. al.

No. 21800.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

April 9, 1921.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; Guy D. Kirby, Judge.

Suit by H. F. Bray against Martha Haskins and another. Decree for plaintiff, and named defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Moore, Barrett & Moore, of Ozark, for appellant.

W. R. Adams, of Forsyth, and G. Purd Hays, of Ozark, for respondent.

RAGLAND, C.

This is a suit in equity to set aside a deed on the ground that it was obtained by wrongful compulsion.

The petition, which was filed in the circuit court of Taney county March 7, 1918, alleges that—

A certain deed purporting to have been made by plaintiff on May 8, 1915, and purporting to convey to the defendant Martha Haskins, formerly Martha Bray, certain lands therein described. "Was obtained by fraud, coercion, intimidation and threats of violence and great bodily harm, and even death towards this plaintiff by the said defendant, Martha Haskins, formerly Martha Bray, in case he, the said plaintiff, failed or refused to execute and deliver to the said defendant a deed conveying the aforesaid lands to her, the said defendant; and the plaintiff says that while under the said restraint and duress, and while in fear of death or some great bodily harm to himself at the hands of the said defendant, or through the connivance or procurement of said defendant and in fraud of his rights, he, the said plaintiff, was forced to execute and deliver the deed aforesaid to the said defendant."

The separate answer of the defendant Martha Haskins admits the execution of the deed, denies that it was obtained by fraud, coercion, intimidation, or threats as alleged in the petition, and avers that on the contrary the deed was executed by plaintiff of his own free will. The separate answer of the defendant J. B. Haskins is a general denial.

The cause was sent on change of venue to Greene county, where it was heard May 19, 1919.

Until a few days before the execution of the deed giving rise to this controversy, the plaintiff and the defendant Martha Haskins were husband and wife. They had been married about 17 years and had two children, Mary, aged 14, and Sherman, aged 2. He was about 50 years of age and she about 17 years his; junior. They lived on a farm owned by him about 20 miles each of Forsyth, in Taney county. The defendant J. B. Haskins was, it seems, a doctor, and he had boarded with them at one time. Prior to the time of the occurrences presently to be narrated, however, he had changed his place of boarding, but continued to remain in the community. The only direct evidence as to what the circumstances were that led to the making of the deed is the testimony of the plaintiff and that of the defendant Martha, and the testimony of the one is in direct conflict with that of the other. He is corroborated in part by the scrivener who drew the deed, and she in part by their daughter. We will first give a brief summary of his version and then of hers.

Plaintiff was sick. Haskins as his physician had prescribed, among others, a cough medicine, and plaintiff had been taking it. One evening when plaintiff sat down to his supper, his wife, Martha, reminded him that he had not taken his medicine. He then got the bottle, shook it, poured out a spoonful, and drank it. He immediately became sick and went to bed. Their daughter, Mary, was spending the night with an uncle in the neighborhood. About midnight Haskins made his appearance. Plaintiff had been asleep. He saw Haskins standing near the foot of his bed with a shotgun in his hands and his wife at the side with his pistol. She demanded that plaintiff give half of his property to her and the other half to their children. He said he would not do it. She told him that he would, or die; that she had poisoned him, but that he was not as near dead as he would he if he did not give her what he had and bring' a suit for divorce. After Haskins had pushed the shotgun into his face and Martha had jabbed him a number of times with the pistol, plaintiff promised to comply with her demands. Haskins then went away. Plaintiff continued ill, but his wife carried the pistol around and from time to time renewed her threats. Within two or three days after the night assault by her and Haskins, she sent for her brother and nephew, and she and they loaded Plaintiff into a hack and took him to Forsyth. At Forsyth he was taken to the office of an attorney, Mr. W. R. Adams, and there the following contract was prepared and signed by the plaintiff and his wife:

"Agreement by and between H. F. Bray and Martha Bray, husband and wife, of the county of Taney and the state of Missouri, on this the 5th day of April, 1915, witnesseth:

"That in order that the proper provision be made for the support of our children, we the aforesaid parties, hereby covenant and agree to and with each other that our property be divided up and disposed of as follows, to wit:

"(1) That the said H. F. Bray is to have and retain a team to consist of a gray mare named Jack and a bay mare named Bess, and is to retain the sum of $100.00 out of the proceeds of a certain note due us from Bill Robinson, of Oklahoma.

"(2) That the following property is to be set apart and sold as soon as the times are more propitious and the market right for a sale without due sacrifice of the value of said property, to wit: 4 yearling mules; 3 mares, Daisy, Job-Eye and Doc; 4 cows; 6 yearlings; 7 ewes; 2 wagons and 4 sets of harness, and out of the proceeds of said sale our debts are to be paid and the remainder of the money which said property brings, ½ is to be paid over to the said Martha Bray for her individual and sole use and the other ½ is to be turned over to H. H. Hall as a trustee and said money used by him for the support and education of our children, to wit: Mary Bray, aged 14, and Sherman Bray, aged 2, as seen fit by the said H. H. Hall and Martha Bray.

"(3) If the Bill Robinson note is collected, after retaining the $100.00 the said H. F. Bray is to pay over ½ of the remainder to the said Martha Bray and the other ½ to H. H. Hall on same terms as aforesaid to be used for the support and education of our said children.

"(4) The said parties hereby agree to make a deed of conveyance to the lands owned on Brushy creek, near Hercules, and put the same up in escrow in the hands of H. H. Hall, the name of the purchaser to be written in at the time of the delivery of said deed, lands to be sold for a reasonable cash value. (½ to be paid over on terms as follows to Martha Bray and other ½ to be paid to H. H. Hall, as trustee for the children, and in conjunction with the wishes of Martha Bray said lands are particularly described: [Here follows a description of lands.])

"(5) Provides that if the purchase price of said land is not paid to the said H. H. Hall and it is necessary to take up this deed and the parties agree and the said H. F. Bray in consideration of the love and affection he has for the said Martha Bray and their children, agrees and binds himself to make and execute a deed conveying ½ of the aforesaid lands in fee simple to Martha Bray, and the other ½ to the children, Mary Bray, and Sherman Bray, and E. F. Bray is allowed to divide the real estate and Martha Bray to take choice of parts.

"(6) Provides that H. F. Bray is to be allowed the privilege of assisting and contributing to the support of the children in such manner and at such time as he may feel disposed and in such amounts as he is able, without any hindrance on the parts of others."

Plaintiff also had Mr. Adams, on the same day, April 5, 1915, prepare and file his petition for divorce. As grounds for divorce, the petition alleged some indignities of a mild character, but was silent as to the assault and threats. Mr. Adams was at the time prosecuting attorney of Taney county, but plaintiff had no opportunity to complain to him of the conduct of his wife and Haskins, because she followed him around and stayed with him continually. She told him just what to tell Mr. Adams to put in the petition for divorce, and he followed her instructions.

After the contract was signed and the divorce suit started, plaintiff stayed at his brother's house, which was about a half mile from his own home. One morning a short time afterward, while plaintiff was at the barn on his farm caring for his stock, his wife came to him and said, "I understand you ain't going to give me what you signed up to?" He replied, "I never said, but I am not going to." And she then said, "If you don't, I will have you killed before three days." Two days after that defendant Haskins, in company with another man, rode up to where plaintiff was at work on his farm, and said, "I understand you said parted you and your wife?" Plaintiff replied that he thought, from what people said about it, he had done so. Thereupon Haskins commenced swearing and shooting at plaintiff. After he had fired three shots at plaintiff, Haskins' horse became unmanageable and he rode away. Two days after this episode, while plaintiff was looking for a cow, some one shot at him twice. These occurrences convinced plaintiff that his wife would have him killed if he did not make her a deed. And within a short time thereafter and within a few days after the divorce was granted, he caused Mr. Adams, who was visiting in the neighborhood and who was also a notary, to prepare the deed in controversy, conveying one-half of his land to his former wife, and another, conveying the remainder to his children. The latter deed he executed voluntarily, but the former was not his free and voluntary act, and he so stated to the notary when asked whether he acknowledged it.

Prior to the execution of the deeds just mentioned, the plaintiff had been afraid to tell any one of the assaults that had been made upon him, or of the threats that had been made against his life, and he had not done so. He was even afraid to complain to the...