Bross v. Rogers

• Decision Date: 02 June 1916
• Docket Number: No. 17886.,17886.
• Citation: 187 S.W. 38
• Parties: BROSS et al. v. ROGERS et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

187 S.W. 38

BROSS et al. v. ROGERS et al.

No. 17886.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

June 2, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; William T. Ragland, Judge.

Suit by Edward J. Bross and others against John J. Rogers and others. From a decree dismissing the petition, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Jas. A. Kemper, of Warrensburg, for appellants. R. S. McClintic, of Monroe City, and Humphrey & Gose, of Shelbina, for respondent Rogers.

BOND, J.

I. This is a suit in equity to set aside and cancel a deed to 160 acres of land, executed by plaintiffs to defendant Rogers; plaintiffs alleging that it was procured by deceit and conspiracy to defraud upon the part of Rogers and his codefendants.

The material facts are these: Plaintiffs owned a farm of 160 acres in Marion county, Mo., which they agreed to trade for 640 acres of land in Kansas, giving $800 boot. During the negotiations the owner of the Kansas land offered the Missouri land, which plaintiffs had agreed to exchange, to defendant Rogers for $70 an acre. Rogers declined to consider it at that price. Bross had also agreed to assist in finding a purchaser for his farm to aid the Kansas people in disposing of it. The highest offer any of them obtained for it was $50 an acre. Later Purnell, one of the defendants, again approached Rogers, who again refused to purchase at $70 an acre, but made a counter proposition of $52.50. This offer was accepted, and arrangements were made for the parties to meet at Palmyra with their representatives and close the two deals. At this time a deed was made to plaintiffs conveying the Kansas land, and plaintiffs executed their deed direct to Rogers. To consummate this deal, which was to be entirely in cash, Rogers borrowed $8,400, from his attorney McClintock, giving him a deed of trust on the Bross farm for $4,500 and another deed of trust for $3,900 on other lands he owned.

At the hearing in the circuit court the petition was dismissed and judgment given for defendants, from which plaintiffs perfected an appeal to this court. The decisive question presented here is whether or no the defendant Rogers was a party to the fraud and conspiracy alleged to have been practiced in the obtention of the deed.

II. In considering the question of the innocency of the purchase by defendant Rogers, we shall assume, for the argument, that the trade between plaintiffs and the other defendants was induced by fraud, misrepresentation, and deceit upon the part of the persons acting for the Kansas corporation which held the title to the land conveyed to plaintiffs, and then determine, seriatim, the validity of the several points relied on to prove that defendant Rogers was cognizant of or a party to the fraud of his codefendants.

The first circumstance adverted to is that Purnell, the active agent of the Kansas owner in bringing about the exchange, had married a cousin of the deceased wife of Rogers and was presumably on social terms with him. It is too much to say that such a connection was sufficient to support an inference of fraudulent...