Eckelmann v. Luecking
| Decision Date | 07 July 1939 |
| Docket Number | 35553 |
| Citation | 130 S.W.2d 471,344 Mo. 979 |
| Parties | Elizabeth Eckelmann, also known as Lizzie Eckelmann, a person of unsound mind, by Paul S. Limerick, Public Administrator of St. Louis County, her Successor Guardian, Appellant, v. Margaret A. Luecking, also known as M. A. Luecking, Charles H. Luecking, Trustee Under Deed of Trust for M. A. Luecking and Minnie Gumz |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court of St. Louis County; Hon. Robert W McElhinney, judge.
Reversed and remanded (with directions).
Robert M. Zeppenfeld for appellant.
(1) A guardian of the estate of a person declared to be non compos mentis can institute a suit in equity in the name of his ward, by himself, as guardian, to set aside a conveyance of real estate made by ward, prior to the insanity adjudication, and also incumbrances or conveyances subsequently placed thereon or made, affecting the title thereto. Sec. 471, R. S. 1929; Webb v. Hayden, 166 Mo. 50; Judson v. Walker, 155 Mo. 79; Gibson v Schull, 251 Mo. 487; 32 C. J., p. 747, sec. 539; Reason v. Jones, 119 Mich. 672; Hinchman v Ballard, 7 W.Va. 152; Equitable Trust Co. v. Garis, 190 Pa. 544; 9 C. J., p. 1215, sec. 108; McKenzie v. Donnell, 151 Mo. 461. (2) Courts of equity will set aside and avoid a deed when a want of capacity to execute is shown, and especially when the other parties to the transactions had knowledge for some time of the mental incapacity of the grantor. Dickson v. Kempinsky, 96 Mo. 252, 9 S.W. 618; Snyder v. Arn, 187 Mo. 165; McKenzie v. Donnell, 151 Mo. 461. (3) Courts of equity will set aside a conveyance of land by deed where a failure of consideration is shown and a fraud perpetrated on a grantor, whether sane or insane. (4) Where a grantee of a non compos grantor, who obtained the deed with knowledge of the mental incapacity of the grantor, by fraud and without consideration, secures a loan later on said land from one who also had knowledge of the mental incapacity of the grantor, and the want of consideration and fraud perpetrated upon the grantor, the plaintiff need not put the defendant maker of said loan in statu quo, there being no privity between plaintiff and said defendant, and no benefit inuring to plaintiff. McKenzie v. Donnell, 151 Mo. 469. (5) In order to be entitled to relief from mistake in erecting improvements on another's land the mistake must be mutual. McKenzie v. Donnell, 151 Mo. 461. (6) A mentally incapacitated owner of land could not be said to be a party to a mutual mistake, because of the mental incapacity of the party. McKenzie v. Donnell, 151 Mo. 461. (7) Where the greater weight of evidence is clear, cogent and convincing, the court in equity should find in favor of the party in whose favor such evidence preponderates, and on appeal on the entire record the appellate court is not bound by findings of the trial court. State ex rel. v. Jarrott, 183 Mo. 217, 81 S.W. 879; Guinan v. Donnell, 201 Mo. 173, 98 S.W. 487. (8) Evidence that is vague or evasive is not to be considered substantial. Development Co. v. Norman, 184 Mo. 153.
Taussig & Luecking and Charles H. Luecking for Margaret A. Luecking and Charles H. Luecking.
(1) Adjudicating a person to be of unsound mind and incapable of handling his affairs does not show evidence of insanity or incapability on a day nine years prior to such adjudication. Rinkle v. Lubke, 246 Mo. 377, 152 S.W. 811; Wood v. Carpenter, 166 Mo. 465, 66 S.W. 177; Kinzer v. Kinzer, 130 Mo. 129; Bartlett v. White, 272 S.W. 944. (2) Imperfect memory resulting from sickness or old age, forgetfulness of names of persons, eccentricities and oddities of habits, are not facts of such mental disease as renders a person incapable of making a deed when these things are not accompanied by proof of facts and acts, showing that the person is incapable of understanding the ordinary affairs of life or of transacting his ordinary business. Cutler v. Zollinger, 117 Mo. 101, 22 S.W. 895; Penningson v. Stanton, 125 Mo. 658, 28 S.W. 1067; Studybaker v. Cofield, 159 Mo. 596, 61 S.W. 246. (3) Witnesses who bear close family, social or business relations to the grantor in a deed possess the most favorable opportunities for observing and knowing grantor's mental condition, and usually their testimony is entitled to great weight. Vining v. Ramage, 3 S.W.2d 712, 319 Mo. 65; Holton v. Cochran, 208 Mo. 317, 106 S.W. 1035; Jones v. Thomas, 218 Mo. 541, 117 S.W. 1177. (4) When a conveyance or contract is made in ignorance of the insanity, and with perfect good faith, a court of equity will not set it aside if the parties cannot be restored to their original position and injustice would be done. Blount v. Spratt, 113 Mo. 48, 20 S.W. 969; Gribber v. Maxwell, 34 Kan. 10, 7 P. 584; Insurance Company v. Hunt, 79 N.Y. 544; Wirebach v. Bank, 97 Pa. St. 549; Bruner v. Johnston, 228 S.W. 92. (5) In equity cases the Supreme Court, though entitled to review and weigh anew the evidence, usually defers to trial chancellor's findings and judgment predicated on substantial evidence, where evidence is conflicting and witnesses' appearance, demeanor and credibility largely controlling. Vining v. Ramage, 3 S.W.2d 722; Bartlett v. White, 272 S.W. 954.
Gantt, J. All concur, except Hays, P. J., absent.
On May 5, 1933, plaintiff was adjudged of unsound mind, and the public administrator of St. Louis County was appointed her guardian. She then instituted, by her guardian this action in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, seeking the cancellation of a trustee's deed, deed of trust and warranty deed purporting to convey Lot 1 of Eckelmann's Sub-division in Section 29, Township 44-N, Range 6-East, containing 10.544 acres in said county.
Defendant Minnie Gumz is a sister and defendant Margaret A. Luecking a cousin of plaintiff. Defendant Charles H. Luecking is a son of Margaret A. Luecking.
The trial continued for quite a period of time. For reasons unexplained, the evidence was heard from time to time at adjourned sessions of the court. On March 18, 1935, the court entered judgment dismissing plaintiff's petition and she appealed.
It will not be necessary to summarize the pleadings. They present only the issues of plaintiff's sanity and the equities of the case.
The facts as shown by the evidence follow: In 1913 Bernard Eckelmann, the father of plaintiff, died. The record is silent as to the death of her mother. At the time of the father's death he owned a small amount of personal property and sixty-three acres of land in St. Louis County. Edward P. Luecking, a nephew of the deceased and a brother of Margaret A. Luecking, administered upon the estate. The six children, Frederick, Wm. F., Louis H., and Elizabeth (Lizzie) Eckelmann, and the married daughters, Lena Uhlmansiek and Minnie Gumz, voluntarily partitioned the land into six lots. Lot 1, the land in controversy, was conveyed to Lizzie. Lot 2 was conveyed to Minnie Gumz. A lot was conveyed to each of the other children. The nephew Edward P. Luecking prepared the partition deeds and took the acknowledgments of the children to the same.
Plaintiff, the youngest child and unmarried, was thirty-seven years old at the time of her father's death. At said time and as long as he lived she resided with him. As the other children grew to manhood and womanhood, they married and left home. Plaintiff attended school until she was fourteen. She worked, for a few months, as housemaid in the City of St. Louis when about seventeen and then returned to her father's home. She had school acquaintances with whom she associated during her school days, and for a number of years thereafter. She kept company with no young man but attended social gatherings and picnics accompanied either by neighbors or members of her family. Some time after the other children left the home the neighbors noticed that she made queer and unusual noises and that she developed a shyness especially of strangers. She excluded herself from others who approached or came upon the farm by retreating to the house. In other words, she discontinued her association with former acquaintances and neighbors. They regarded her as a person of unsound mind. It should be stated that during the time she lived alone with her father, she did the house work and occasionally worked in the field.
All of her brothers and sisters, except Frederick, testified as witnesses in this case. After marriage, the brothers and sisters and a few distant relatives made infrequent visits to the old home. Generally said visitors remained only for fifteen or twenty minutes to exchange greetings and inquire how the father and daughter were getting along. Of course none of the visitors could detail conversations had with either Lizzie or her father on these occasional visits. The children, except Minnie Gumz, testified that on said visits Lizzie appeared to be of sound mind. The father's death presented the question of what should be done about Lizzie. Finally it was agreed that she would live with her widowed sister Minnie Gumz. After Minnie Gumz took charge of Lizzie they resided for sometime at different places in the county. In the meantime, and prior to 1922, Minnie Gumz, encouraged and aided by her son Albert Gumz, borrowed, at different times, money amounting to about $ 400 from her cousin Margaret A. Luecking. She promised Margaret that she would not mortgage Lot 2 which she inherited from her father. In 1922 Minnie Gumz decided to build a residence on said Lot 2. She applied to Margaret A. Luecking for a loan of $ 3300 for that purpose. She again promised Margaret that she would not mortgage Lot 2. Margaret loaned her said sum of money for which Minnie Gumz gave three notes, without security, payable to Margaret. On completion of the house in February, 1923, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial