Chadwell v. Reed

• Decision Date: 19 June 1906
• Citation: 198 Mo. 359,95 S.W. 227
• Parties: CHADWELL et al. v. REED.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

95 S.W. 227

198 Mo. 359

CHADWELL et al. v. REED.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

June 19, 1906.

1. CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS—DEEDS— VALIDITY—MENTAL CAPACITY—BURDEN OF PROOF.

One who attacks the validity of a deed upon the ground that the grantor was at the time of its execution mentally incompetent has the burden of proving the grantor's incapacity.

2. SAME—PURPOSE OF DEED.

In a suit to set aside a deed on the ground that the grantor was mentally incompetent at the time the deed was executed, the fact that the primary purpose of the deed was to pass title to all of the grantor's realty to his wife, raised no presumption of his incapacity.

3. DEEDS—MENTAL CAPACITY—TEST.

The test of the capacity to execute a deed is the ability to understand the nature and effect of the transaction.

4. CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS—TRIAL— EFFECT OF VERDICT.

In a suit to set aside a deed on the ground of the mental incapacity of the grantor, the verdict of the jury is advisory only.

5. SAME—INCAPACITY OF GRANTOR—EVIDENCE.

In an action to set aside a deed, evidence held insufficient to support a finding by the jury that the grantor was mentally incompetent at the time the deed was executed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Knox County; E. R. McKee, Judge.

Action by Lorana J. Chadwell and others against Ruth Reed. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed.

L. F. Cottey, for appellant. O. D. Jones, for respondents.

BURGESS, P. J.

This is a suit to set aside a deed made by Waterman Reed, deceased, in his lifetime, to his wife, Ruth Reed, the defendant, on the 31st day of January, 1895, conveying to her the farm and homestead, consisting of 590 acres, upon which they then resided. The land was worth at the time from $10 to $12 an acre, and was then incumbered with a deed of trust for $2,850. At the time of the trial, June 3, 1903, the land was worth $20 to $25 an acre, and was still incumbered with the said deed of trust. On the 31st day of January, 1895, Waterman Reed, accompanied by his wife and son, Sherman (or "Golden"), went to the Knox County Savings Bank, at Edina, and told the cashier of said bank, Capt. Henry R. Parsons, that he wanted to convey his farm to his wife, and inquired of him as to the proper way to have it done. After being advised in that respect, the transfer of the title was effected by a deed made and executed by Waterman Reed and his wife conveying the land to said Henry R. Parsons, and by a conveyance made immediately thereafter by said Parsons to the defendant. The deeds so made were delivered and recorded that day. Waterman Reed died the latter part of March, 1895, and this suit was instituted November 3, 1902. The plaintiffs are three of the children of the grantor, Waterman Reed, and the defendant is his surviving widow. They had five children, but the two other children were satisfied with the disposition their father had made of the farm, and declined to be made parties to the suit.

The validity of the deed is assailed in the petition on the ground of the want of mental capacity of the grantor, Waterman Reed, and of lack of any consideration moving to him; also on the ground of undue influence over him by defendant and one of her sons. It is also averred in the petition that the deed was made to defendant in trust; that she was to divide said lands, or the proceeds thereof, above her living, among the five children, and that the defendant now denies such trust; that the reason this suit was not sooner brought was that for four or five years the defendant admitted such trust. The petition, omitting the formal parts and the description of the land, is as follows: "Plaintiffs for second amended petition herein say: They are three of the five children and heirs at law of Waterman Reed, late of Knox county, Mo., now deceased. That the defendant is their mother and the widow of said deceased who died intestate in this county and the owner in fee of the following lands: * * * That plaintiffs, as children and heirs of said deceased, are entitled each to an undivided one-fifth of said land, subject to the dower and homestead rights of the defendant, and subject also to a deed of trust and incumbrance thereon, dated April 1, 1902, to secure the payment of $2,850 to one Mortimer Parsons, with interest at 6 per cent. per annum, and recorded in book 54, p. 413, Deed Records of Knox county. Plaintiffs state: That for some time prior to the 31st day of January, A. D. 1895, the said deceased was old and infirm in body and mind, and had become and was incompetent to and had not for some time attended to his business affairs, and much less able to make a deed. That at that time and while in that condition the defendant and her son, A. S. Reed (or Golden Reed), by advice, persuasion, and under influence induced him to believe that he might and ought to make a general conveyance of all his property in lands, the 590 acres hereinbefore described to the defendant, his wife, about 11 years younger than he, and then in robust health, and that she could and would finally by will, or otherwise, make a division of his estate as he described it to be done, of share and share alike to his children. And that with that understanding and agreement, and by persuasion and influence, they did, on account of his weakness and imbecility of mind and when he was unable to fully comprehend and understand the effect thereof, make a deed absolute in form to Henry R. Parsons on that day and date for all his said land, and being nearly all his property, reciting that it was for one dollar and other valuable considerations, when in fact it was for no consideration moving to him, said grantor. That immediately on the same day at the same sitting and as a part of the same transaction, said Parsons and his wife Sarah made and delivered to the defendant a deed for all said lands, also reciting that it was made for $1 and other valuable considerations; and was in fact made for no consideration. That said grantor, the deceased, was then in such a state of debility of body and mind, as to be incapable of making a deed or engaging in such business with a comprehension and understanding of it. That after its execution he proposed that his will and that of his wife be prepared, and upon being informed he had nothing to will, wept like a child. And in a few days thereafter he died. That defendant accepted said deeds and put them on record. But for a few years thereafter she admitted the trust of said deeds, that she was to divide said lands or the proceeds thereof above her living and support among hers and the children of deceased. And did actually make a will or two to that effect, partial, however, to the two children and heirs who failed to join in this suit. That she has finally become so prejudiced against these plaintiffs, she will not visit or communicate with them, and now absolutely repudiates and denies the terms of the agreement and trust and terms upon which she and her son procured it from the deceased and claims under it absolutely. That the reason this suit was not sooner brought was that for four or five years the defendant admitted said trust and its legal and moral binding effect upon her. That the other two children and heirs of said deceased are satisfied with the said deeds and disposition of the said land and for that reason refuse to join in this suit, and for that reason are not made parties herein. Plaintiffs ask that both said deeds made by deceased to said Henry R. Parsons and by him and wife to defendants be set aside and for naught held and for general relief and costs of suit."

The answer denies the allegation of the petition with respect to the want of mental capacity of the deceased to make the deed in question, denies the charge of undue influence, and denies that the deed was made to defendant in trust. It affirmatively avers that the deceased was of sound mind and fully understood the nature of the business in which he was engaged when he made said deed; that the deed was not procured or induced by persuasion or undue influence on the part of the defendant or any one else; that ever since January 31, 1895, the date of the execution and delivery of said deed, the defendant has been in the actual possession of said lands, claiming title thereto under said deed and has made lasting and valuable improvements thereon of the value of $1,000. The answer also avers that plaintiffs have been guilty of laches in bringing this suit and pleads the same in bar of this action. The reply was a general denial. This interrogatory was submitted to the jury: "At the time deceased Waterman executed the deed in question to the defendant, Ruth Reed, to wit, on the 31st day of January, 1895, was he, said Waterman Reed, in such condition of mind as to render him incapable of understanding and comprehending the nature, character and effect of such conveyance?" Plaintiff's first and most important witness was Dr. Ellis, of La Plata, Mo., who said that he was in his sixty-ninth year and had been practicing medicine for 43 years, that he had known Waterman Reed for about 25 years, and had been his physician the greater part of that time. Witness did not visit Waterman Reed professionally in the year 1894, but met and had some conversation with him at Brashear, in the latter part of the summer or early in the fall of 1894. After leaving him witness was impressed with the fact that Mr. Reed's mind was not as good as it had been; did not seem to be so bright and brilliant. Witness was visited at his office in La Plata by Mr. Reed in the later part of January or early in February, 1895, when he made an examination of Mr. Reed in a professional way. From his examination of Mr. Reed he thought he was partially paralyzed as a result of hemorrhage on the brain, "and most likely a slight softening in the brain at these particular points, it is hard, very hard, to diagnose those cases, but we just take the...