Ellis v. McNally

• Decision Date: 01 June 1915
• Docket Number: No. 17215.,17215.
• Citation: 177 S.W. 654
• Parties: ELLIS v. McNALLY et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

177 S.W. 654

ELLIS v. McNALLY et al.

No. 17215.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June 1, 1915.

In Banc. Appeal from Circuit Court, Lewis County; Charles D. Stewart, Judge.

Suit by John Ellis, by George Chance, guardian, against Miles McNally and another, to set aside a deed executed and delivered by plaintiff to defendants. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions to dismiss the bill.

On the 16th of May, 1911, George W. Chance filed proceedings in the probate court of Lewis county, Mo., to have John Ellis, a resident of said county, declared to be a person of unsound mind, and incapable of managing his own affairs. Said man impaneled a jury, and upon inquiry it was adjudged that said Ellis was a person of unsound mind, incapable of managing his affairs, and said Chance was appointed guardian of his person and estate. Chance quail led as such guardian, and on the 16th of May, 1911, filed in the circuit court of said county a petition charging that said Ellis was of unsound mind and incapable of attending to his own business. It is further alleged that on the 12th day of May, 1911, said Ellis was the owner in fee of an undivided one-half interest in certain real estate in Lewis county, being 110 acres more or less. The petition describes it as consisting of two tracts of 25 acres each, and one tract of 60 acres. It is further alleged that on said 12th day of May, 1911, said Ellis signed, acknowledged, and delivered to defendants, Allies J. Mc-Nally and John H. Mays, a deed in due form purporting to convey to said defendants the undivided one-half interest in the real estate aforesaid; that by blandishments, deception, etc., he was induced to make said deed, without any consideration paid to him therefor. The petition then prays the court to adjudge and decree the deed aforesaid to be canceled, set aside, and for naught held, and for such other relief as might be proper.

On September 4, 1911, defendants filed an answer, and alleged therein that a valuable consideration was paid by defendants for the land described in petition, and denied every other allegation contained in said petition. They further averred in said answer that at the time said John Ellis conveyed the land aforesaid to these defendants he was of sound and disposing mind, and made said conveyance freely and without blandishments, deception, or fraudulent representation, etc. They denied that any improper or undue influence was exerted by defendants.

On September 8, 1911, plaintiff filed a reply to the new matter in defendants' answer, and alleged therein that he had no information sufficient to form belief as to whether defendants paid his said ward any consideration for said land, but that, if they did, he alleges it was less than one-half of the value of said land, and that at the time it was conveyed his ward was incapacitated to understand and comprehend the nature of the transaction in which he was then engaged, or the character, nature, or value of the property that was conveyed. The reply further makes a tender of all money, etc., paid his said ward. It then concludes with a prayer to the court to investigate, and if any consideration was paid his ward that the same should be ascertained, and he be allowed to pay same into court, and that the deed aforesaid be canceled and set aside. The case was submitted to a jury at the September term, 1911, and a hung jury resulted. It again came on for trial on the 4th of September, 1912, and resulted in a verdict for plaintiff, on the 7th of September, 1912. The jury decided that on May 12, 1911, John Ellis did not have mental capacity to understand the nature and effect of the deed ma de to said defendants; that the deed aforesaid was obtained from said Ellis by undue influence of defendants; and that defendants practiced fraud on said Ellis in obtaining the deed aforesaid.

On September 9, 1912, defendants prayed the court to make the following finding of facts: First, that at the time of the execution of the deed aforesaid the plaintiff, John Ellis, was not so deranged and unsound of mind that he did not understand the nature, character, and effect of the transaction; second, the deed in controversy was not obtained from John Ellis by undue influence of the defendants or either of them; third, the defendants practiced no fraud or deception upon John Ellis in obtaining the deed in controversy; fourth, the defendants had no knowledge or information concerning the mental condition of John Ellis which would in law put them on inquiry as to his mental condition; fifth, the defendants paid a valuable consideration for the deed in controversy. The above motion was overruled, but the court made a finding of facts, accepting the verdict of the jury as to the first and disregarding the answers to the second and third interrogatories, and found that defendants paid a valuable consideration for the execution of said deed. Motion for new trial was filed in due time, overruled, appeal allowed to this court, and the case brought here for review by the defendants.

Plaintiff introduced in the neighborhood of 17 or 18 witnesses, and practically all of whom gave it as their opinion that John Ellis was not capable of transacting business, etc. Many of these witnesses testified to different facts, and the substance of their testimony is about along the following lines: John Ellis was quiet; never butted into other people's business; slow to make up with strangers; was queer, reticent; would not indulge in extended conversations; would talk to himself; would talk to the horses as though they were human beings; would go shopping with his mother and remain in the buggy or wagon until she got through; went to the field of one of his neighbors and followed the plow around for three or four rounds without saying anything, and then left; would do whatever his mother told him to do; when working on the road would wait when he finished his work until he was directed what next to do; invited some of the boys to throw rocks at his pigs, and one of them was killed; while adding figures, for the amusement of the city folks, he made a circle, placed the figure he was to carry in the circle, and said, "I will put you there; I may want to use you again;" would not talk to the girls, except to answer them "Yes" or "No;" was peculiar; was fond of horses; had patience, and would wait for his mother; loved children; kicked at a rooster to make him jump and furnish amusement for the children; said in a joking way, "The rascals are after me" (evidently referring to the defendants who were seeking to buy his land); would sometimes get his horses tangled in the plow or harrow; seemed more like a child than a man. He was kind and attentive to his mother, and waited on her as a dutiful son.

The different witnesses introduced by plaintiff, as a rule, after referring to some of the above peculiarities and eccentricities, were permitted to express their respective opinions to the effect that John Ellis was not mentally capable of transacting business at any of the times referred to by said witnesses. Out of the score of witnesses introduced in behalf of plaintiff it is not recorded, that any of them had any business of any kind with John, nor did any of them ever see John try to transact any business with any person. None of them claim to have ever heard of any transaction in which John was cheated or lost anything. He always was polite and gentlemanly. While his answers to questions in the presence of above witnesses were always "Yes" or "No," yet it was not shown by any of them that his answers were not intelligent and to the point. It is contended by respondent, that from the foregoing peculiarities, eccentricities, etc., this court should find and adjudge that on May 12, 1911, John Ellis was mentally incapable of understanding the business in which he was engaged, and the effect of what he was doing, at the time he sold the real estate in controversy to defendants. On the other hand, it is insisted by appellants, that the above peculiarities and eccentricities did not indicate a want of mental capacity upon the part of plaintiff to understand the nature and extent of the sale made by him to defendants. As appellants put in their evidence, we will consider the case upon the record as a whole. Defendants' Evidence.

The evidence of appellants tends to show that John Ellis was a good mathematician, a good reader, and the champion speller of his neighborhood. While he talked but little, his answers were intelligent and to the point.

James Eakins tried to buy a colt from John once, but did not make the deal because lie priced the colt a little too high, and he could not persuade John to come clown on the price.

Joseph W. Eakins testified that he and John were members of the Grange, and that John was challenger or chaplain. He further testified:

"Q. Did the position he held require him to take any part in the proceedings? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did he do his duty and perform his part intelligently? A. I never heard any complaints, and I never saw anything wrong. Q. In his work as an officer of the Grange while you were a member did John Ellis perform his part without the use of books or notes? A. Yes, sir."

John visited his sister, Mrs. Purdy, at Quincy, Ill., once or twice a year. His niece, Mrs. Ella Meyer, who had known John all her life, in speaking of his visits to Quincy, said:

"When he would come to see you in Quincy would he join with you in any way in your pleasures there in your family? A. Yes, sir. Q. Well, in what way? A. He would join in the conversation in the family, and he was a fine singer, and when my sister played on the piano he would join with us in singing songs and hymns, and he would sometimes take us to the theater, and the Bijou, a vaudeville house. Q. Did you and your Uncle John ever correspond any? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you now any of the letters that you have received...