Canty v. Halpin

• Decision Date: 22 May 1922
• Docket Number: No. 22720.,22720.
• Citation: 294 Mo. 118,242 S.W. 97
• Parties: CANTY et al. v. HALPIN et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

242 S.W. 97

294 Mo. 118

CANTY et al. v. HALPIN et al.

No. 22720.

Supreme Court of Missouri, in Banc.

May 22, 1922.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; George E. Shields, Judge.

Action by Joseph Canty and others against Catherine Halpin and others, to set aside eight deeds conveying property to the defendants. Judgment for the plaintiffs and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions to dismiss the bill.

W. W. Henderson and dames Laginn, both of St. Louis, for appellants.

Glendy B. Arnold, of St. Louis, for respondents.

Statement.

REEVES, C.

This is a companion case of No. 22300, that case being styled Joseph Canty et al., respondents, v. Julia Halpin et al., appellants, 242 S. W. 94. The latter case was a statutory action to set aside the will of Margaret E. Halpin on the grounds of undue influence exercised over her mind by Julia Halpin, one of the appellants therein and herein.

This is an action in equity to cancel eight deeds, dated November 30, 1917, signed and acknowledged by Margaret B. Halpin, and conveying four separate pieces of property to appellant Julia Halpin, and conveying four separate pieces of property to appellant Catherine Halpin, all upon the grounds of incapacity and undue influence. Plaintiffs prevailed below.

Respondents Mary Canty and Jennie Boeckmann, with the appellants, are the only surviving children of Margaret E. Halpin, deceased. Respondents Joseph Canty and Martin Boeckmann are husbands respectively of Mary Canty and Jennie Boeckmann. There are no other heirs of Margaret E. Halpin. Margaret E. Halpin died on the 22d day of July, 1919, and this suit was instituted in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis on August 11, 1919.

Appellants are the unmarried daughters of the grantor, and resided with her until her death. The petition charges that the grantor was of the advanced age of 71 years, was weak and infirm; at the time the deeds in question were executed, was suffering from great mental anguish and sorrow by reason of the death of one of her children; that she was mentally and physically incapable of looking after her affairs, and depended on others; that appellant Julia Halpin was of a domineering and determined disposition, and had acquired an undue influence over the mind of the grantor, and, by overpersuasion and dictation, had procured the execution of said deeds; that a confidential relation had peen established between grantor and Julia Halpin by reason of the position of said Julia Halpin as manager of the business affairs of the grantor; and that the grantor, for a valuable consideration, had. promised the respondents to make an equal division of her property among her children. The answer of the appellants denied the principal allegations of the petition, alleging that the grantor had conveyed certain properties to the respondents previous to the execution of the deeds in question, and that, by the terms of a will dated January 22, 1914, all of the parties hereto had enjoyed benefits; that said will had been contested and set aside, but that from the judgment an appeal had been taken, and then there was a prayer that the action of the court in the contest case should be without prejudice to the rights of the appellants in the event the will should be finally upheld.

The testimony in this case differed widely from that produced in the will contest. In. that case there was some testimony that Julia Halpin had exercised an undue influence over the mind of the testatrix, and it appeared that she occupied such a position with respect to her mother's affairs as to show a confidential and fiduciary relation, and, therefore, raised the presumption of undue influence. The will contest case being a statutory action, and therefore an action at law, we held that there was substantial testimony offered by contestants to call for the opinion of the jury, although there was an abundance of testimony in contradiction to plaintiffs' case. In this case respondents offered in evidence the petition, the record proper, and the instructions of the will contest for the purpose of showing a status at the date of the execution of the will, to wit, January 22, 1914, as determined by the judgment in that case, which status was that Julia Halpin had an undue influence over the mind of the testatrix and had exercised that undue influence over testatrix on that date.

Mary Canty, one of the respondents, then testified in substance that she was married in 1902, and since that time had lived away from the home of the grantor, although she visited her mother frequently, "nearly always once a week"; that her mother had lived for nearly 35 or 40 years at 2211 University street in the city of St. Louis, where she died; that one of her sisters, named Isabel, had died on the 22d of November, 1917, and. that, she being the youngest child, her mother was never the same; that her mother was feeble and had to get around with a" cane, and that she was 71 years old when she died; that Isabel was buried on Friday, and that her mother and Julia and Kate, the appellants, on the Sunday following, came to her house, where they stayed for some time; that on the following Friday, one week from the burial of Isabel, the mother and. Julia and Kate returned home; that witness took her mother home in a machine—got there about 3 o'clock; that her mother started to cry, whereupon Julia said that she should not get herself worked up, as she had some insurance papers to sign; that after a little while her mother went over to the desk, and Julia gave her some papers—"a whole bunch of papers, and mother kept signing them as Julia handed them to her. They looked like deeds or insurance papers; at the time we thought they were insurance papers. I did not know what they were. When mother finished signing them Julia took them and went down town." Witness further said that "Julia used to help mother manage her business;" that on August 5, 1918, witness, with other children of grantor, attended a birthday party at her mother's home and at that time was told that her mother was going to give each of her daughters a piece of property; that same was done, the deeds recorded, and that witness had been in possession of property given to her. It should be said that, as alleged in petition, for the purpose of doing equity this property was tendered back, and the same was done with respect to the property given to respondent Jennie Boeckmann.

Witness spent much time with her mother, she visiting her mother and her mother visiting her. She took her out driving in her automobile. Her mother never asked her to help her in business matters, as "Julia did not allow anybody to help mother."

Witness said that prior to November 30, 1917, Julia was in Denver for about 10 months taking care of Isabel, who died on November 22, 1917, and that during her absence "Kate attended to everything," and that "Kate took care of the business while Julia was gone." She said that for a year before the death of her mother she (her mother) did not attend to her affairs (her death occurred July 22, 1919, and the deeds were executed November 30, 1917), and she testified further that she (the witness) never paid any attention to her mother's business; that Julia attended to everything for three or four years before her mother's death; that Julia gave out the work and went to see that it was done—referring to plastering, plumbing, and repairs —and that Julia wrote out checks, and that this was about all the business to be at tended to; that "Julia attended to the details of mother's affairs by answering the phone, making out checks, taking money to the bank."

Jennie Boeckmann testified for respondents in substance: That, after her marriage in 1902, "Julia took charge of father's business, and has been handling it ever since father died in 1906." "After father's death Julia assisted mother in looking after the property, rents, etc., and did the banking business. She did the banking business when father was alive." Witness did not learn of the conveyances of November 30, 1917, until informed of the fact in the spring before her mother's death. That while Julia was away Kate attended to the business, with the assistance of Genevieve, witness' daughter, and that her mother had an agent to collect her rents and look after the repairs. That her mother had an agent to take care of her business when Julia was at home, as well as when Julia was away, but that when Julia was away he looked after the repairs. Several specific and important transactions carried on by grantor were called to her attention, but witness was unable to say whether or not Julia had any connection with such transactions. In fact, she said she had no knowledge of any instances where Julia had anything to do with any business of importance in the affairs of her mother, such as borrowing money and selling property.

Witness testified as to disagreements and controversies between Julia and herself and other members of the family.

Lawrence Tracey, testifying for respondents, said in substance that he knew Mrs. Halpin, the grantor; that he never knew her to attend to any business during the life of her husband, and that since his death he did not know who attended to the business.

Genevieve Boeckmann, the 17 year old daughter of Jennie Boeckmann, testifying for respondents, said in substance that prior to November 30th, 1917, she practically lived at her grandmother's house; that "Julia managed all of her business affairs;" but, upon inquiry as to details, said that she wrote out checks, answered the telephone, and looked after repairs on houses owned by her grandmother; that she would write out checks to pay household bills. She remembered that her grandmother bought an automobile, and that she sold it again, and that in signing checks Julia would show her grandmother where to sign. This was all the testimony on the part of the respondents.

On behalf of appellants ...