Cockrill v. Cockrill

• Decision Date: 01 March 1897
• Citation: 79 F. 143
• Parties: COCKRILL v. COCKRILL et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

79 F. 143

COCKRILL v. COCKRILL et al.

United States Circuit Court, W.D. Missouri.

March 1, 1897

Merryman & Merryman, for complainant.

Hall &amp Woodson and E. H. Norton, for defendants.

ADAMS District Judge.

This suit was instituted by complainant, William F. Cockrill against defendants, Clinton Cockrill, Helen Woodson, and others, to set aside a deed to 251 acres of land sold by him to Clinton Cockrill on May 19, 1881, on the grounds of fraud undue influence, and especially on account of the alleged incompetency of complainant at that time to transact his business, and for the further purpose of setting aside a deed made by complainant to Clinton Cockrill for the 160 acres known as the Fielding Cockrill homestead. This deed was made November 2, 1887. The same reasons are assigned for setting aside this deed as the former. The defendant Clinton Cockrill is the father-in-law of complainant, and the father of defendant Helen Woodson, who was formerly the wife of complainant. Two of the other defendants are complainant's minor children by his wife Helen. The other two defendants are children of Helen by her second husband the defendant Bryon Woodson. By deed dated May 19, 1881, the complainant, for the consideration of $6,000 paid to him, deeded a tract of 251 acres of land in Platte county, Mo., to his father-in-law, Clinton Cockrill. On the same day Clinton Cockrill and wife duly conveyed the same to Helen Cockrill and her bodily heirs, intending the same as an advancement to his daughter and her children. She then had two children by her husband, the complainant herein. The tract of land according to the evidence before me, was not worth over $6,000 at the time, and this sum was paid to the complainant by his father-in-law for it. The complainant was then without doubt capable of attending to business, and no fraud or undue influence was practiced upon him in the transaction. I find no warrant in the evidence for the contention of complainant's counsel that Clinton Cockrill undertook or agreed to pay complainant any sum above the consideration mentioned in the deed, $6,000; and therefore there is no ground for ordering an accounting in favor of the complainant for any unpaid purchase money. This disposes of the first ground of complaint alleged in the bill.

The second alleged ground of complaint relates to the homestead tract of 160 acres. The complainant inherited a fortune, in land, from his father, and indulged the reasonable expectation that his father-in-law would in a short time die, and leave another fortune for his own or his family's use and support. As is usual in such cases, he became inattentive to business, and convivial in his tasks and habits, and soon became addicted to the excessive use of alcoholic liquors. Under such circumstances, and with such habits, he became frequently short of money, and resorted to the common expedient of borrowing. Being still the owner of lands, inherited from his father, his credit was, to a limited extent, good. Prior to the year 1885 he had, from time to time, borrowed money from the bank of Wells & Co., of Platte City, till it amounted in April of that year to the sum of $2,739.02. He then applied for more, and could have secured it from the bank at 10 per cent. interest; but it was finally determined, in order to avoid paying the high rate of interest demanded by the bank, that the father-in-law should loan him $3,300 at 6 per cent. interest per annum. This was done, and with the money so borrowed he paid $2,739.02 to the bank, and had $560.98 for his own use. To secure the payment of this loan, the complainant executed a deed of trust bearing date April 29, 1885, whereby he conveyed to one C. C. Kemper, as trustee, a tract of 160 acres of land situate in Platte county, Mo., already referred to as the Fielding Cockrill homestead. As a part of this transaction, the complainant was required by Clinton Cockrill to make, and did make, a deed to another tract of 80 acres of land in Platte county to his wife, Helen. No consideration was paid by his wife to him for this grant, and only a nominal consideration of one dollar is mentioned in the conveyance. In passing it is proper to say that no relief is asked against this conveyance, but it is claimed that because the father-in-law persuaded the complainant to make this gift to his wife, at just this juncture, it amounts to exacting usurious interest for the loan of the $3,300, and therefore is to be considered in determining the issue of fraud in relation to the execution of the deed of trust itself. The complainant at this time had a family consisting of his wife and two children, aged, respectively, five and seven years. He so mistreated his wife that she was compelled to, and did some time after the month of April, 1887, take her children, and leave him. She instituted a suit for divorce, and on April 2, 1889, secured a decree. This decree also awarded to her the care and custody of the two children. While the complainant, even before April, 1885, had been addicted to the use of alcoholic beverages, and had frequently been under the influence of liquor, the evidence shows that he was fully capable of managing his own affairs, and at the time of executing the Kemper deed of trust understood what he was about. No coercion or undue influence was practiced upon him by his father-in-law in this transaction unless it be in requiring him to make the gift of the 80 acre tract of land to his wife, which will be considered later. After 1885 the drinking habit seems to have increased. His sprees became more frequent, and were longer continued. He became abusive and cruel to his wife and family, and in June, 1887, due and proper proceedings were taken, at the instance of his relatives, in the probate court of Platte county, to have him adjudged non compos mentis, and on June 3,1887, on inquisition had, he was duly adjudged by said court incapable of attending to his own business, and a habitual drunkard, and one William C. Wells was thereupon appointed guardian of his person and estate. Wells, the guardian, entered upon the discharge of his duty, and at once committed his ward to the St. Vincent's Inebriate Hospital at St. Louis for treatment. He remained there for nearly three months, and on September 1, 1887, was discharged by the medical staff of the hospital, consisting of Drs. Bauduy and Herman, as apparently cured. After his discharge, he endeavored to secure employment at Kansas City and other places, and succeeded in doing so for a space of a month or six weeks. Between September and November he occasionally appeared to be under the influence of liquor, but, after a careful reading of all the evidence relating to his conduct and mental condition up to November 1st, I am of the opinion that he did not, up to that time, resume his intemperate habits as of old, but that his maudlin condition, as occasionally observed, was rather the effect of some stupifying drug. Many witnesses testify to seeing him, and observing his conduct during this period, and pronounced him to have been intelligent, sensible, and entirely capable of transacting his own business. On the whole, I believe the evidence fairly warrants this conclusion. In this state of facts, the complainant, on November 1, 1887, after personal interviews with the probate judge of Platte county, prepared and filed a petition in said probate court in words and figures as follows:

'To the Probate Court of Platte County, Missouri: The petition of W. F. Cockrill shows to the probate court that on the 2d day of June, 1887, he was found by a jury and adjudged by said probate court to be incapable of managing his own affairs, and Wm. C. Wells was duly appointed guardian, and gave bond as required by law. Petitioner states that he has undergone treatment for his disability, and has been cured, and is now in condition to take charge of his own affairs. He therefore asks that proper, legal steps be taken to restore to him his rights, that inquiry be had into his present condition in the manner required by law, and that upon proper finding of a jury that his property be restored to him subject to his own control and management.

('signed) W. F. Cockrill.' -- and duly sworn to. The evidence shows that the complainant wrote this petition himself, and presented it to the court for its action, and I am unable to find from a careful examination of the evidence that he was inspired or aided to do this by any of the defendants, or any persons acting for them. On the contrary, the evidence shows that this proceeding was entirely of his own motion; and, notwithstanding its suspiciously close proximity in time to the transaction of the next day, I can find no satisfactory evidence of any connection with it by the defendants, and much less of any fraudulent connection. On the filing of this petition, on November 1, 1887, the court issued a venire for a jury to inquire into the mental condition of complainant, and thereupon a jury of 12 lawful men of Platte county came, and, after hearing the testimony, in the presence of complainant, returned the following verdict:

'We the jury, find that the within-named, William F. Cockrill, is competent to attend to his own affairs.

('Signed) William Kimsey, Foreman.'

And the court then and there made the following order:

'It is therefore considered by the court that said William F. Cockrill is a person of good mind, and competent to attend to his own affairs. Wherefore it is ordered that William C. Wells, guardian of the person and estate of said William F. Cockrill, do make final settlement of his accounts, and that he restore to the said William F. Cockrill all things remaining in his hands.'

Prior to this time the complainant had made such default...