Erisman v. Erisman
| Decision Date | 31 March 1875 |
| Citation | 59 Mo. 367 |
| Parties | ISAAC H. ERISMAN, et al., Respondents, v. JOHN B. ERISMAN, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.
Krum & Patrick, for Appellants.
J. S. Bond, with M. Kinealy, for Respondents.
The plaintiffs, who are heirs of John Erisman, deceased, brought this suit to set aside a deed conveying a certain house and lot in the city of St. Louis, together with household furniture, etc., to Jno. C. Vogel as trustee for Mrs. Erisman, then wife of the grantor, their father.
The grounds on which this conveyance is sought to be set aside, are, that decedent, who at the time of his death was about seventy-four years old, was enfeebled by sickness, suffering and old age, and that defendants, John B. Erisman, a son, and Mary Erisman, the wife of deceased, taking advantage of his situation, and of the fact that the son just named, was his agent and had his entire confidence, conspired and confederated together to obtain all of his property and to defraud plaintiffs out of their just share in his estate; that in furtherance of this fraudulent design, defendants, by means of false statements respecting plaintiffs, and by threats and reproaches, brought decedent into a condition of mind subservient to their will, and induced him to make the conveyance mentioned. The deed is dated March 30, 1869.
This suit was tried in connection with one, brought by the public administrator, wherein similar allegations were made against defendants, in respect to money, notes, bonds and certificates of deposit, owned by deceased prior to his death, which took place the 8th of June, 1869.
It would serve no useful purpose to review, in detail, the voluminous mass of testimony in this case. It is sufficient to say at the outset, that as to the charges of conspiracy, confederation, threats, undue influence, etc., etc., made against defendants, an attentive perusal of the record discloses nothing which affords these charges any degree of support, so far as relates to the subject matter of the present suit.
As to the allegation that deceased was of weak mind in consequence of the enfeebling influences of sickness and old age, although two or three of the witnesses say that the decedent was “fickle-minded” and frequently would ““change his opinions,” etc., etc., yet the testimony, taken as a whole, shows, with unquestionable clearness, that he was in full possession of his faculties, collected his rents for the house, giving receipts therefor, and had a full appreciation of and understood all the details of business.
The testimony of Vogel, a disinterested witness, shows the mental capacity of the deceased in a very conspicuous light. The latter part of February, 1869, decedent sent for him, having met him some time before at his office. When Vogel arrived at the house, decedent said he had sent for him, thought he was getting the dropsy, did not think he could live much longer, wished to arrange his property, and “talked as sensibly as any man of his age could talk.” Upon being asked if he desired to make a will, he said no, he wished to ““deed the property,” that he had given his wife the choice between bonds and money, and real...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tucker v. St. Louis Life Ins. Co.
...adm'r, 24 Mo. 265; Meyer vs. Field, 37 Mo. 434, and cas. cit.; Fithian vs. Monks, 43 Mo. 502; Seimers vs. Kleeburg, 56 Mo. 196; Erisman vs. Erisman, 59 Mo. 367; Primm vs. Raboteau, 56 Mo. 407; Real Estate Sav. Inst. vs. John Collonius, 63 Mo. 290, and cas. cit). This being the case, and the......
-
Rothenberger v. Garrett
...v. Carter, 119 Mo. 572. (2) A trustee of real estate is a necessary party to any suit involving the title to that property. Erisman v. Erisman, 59 Mo. 367; Siemers Kleeburg, 56 Mo. 169. (3) The tax deed from Pohlmann to Jacobs, was void, and passed no title: The petition on which the judgme......
-
Rogers v. Tucker
...201 and 207; Barbour on Parties (1 Ed.) 529 and 530; Perry on Trusts (1 Ed.) sec. 873; Bliss on Code Pleading (1 Ed.) sec. 58; Erisman v. Erisman, 59 Mo. 367; Seimers v. Kleeburg, 56 Mo. 196; Seimers Schrader, 88 Mo. 20; Gardner v. Austin, 31 Mo. 535; Gibbons v. Gentry, 20 Mo. 458. (2) The ......
-
Markwell v. Markwell
...that he is a necessary party to this suit, for otherwise his interest was not, and could not be affected by the decree rendered. [Erisman v. Erisman, 59 Mo. 367.] this question was properly raised by the answer. [Gimbel v. Pignero, 62 Mo. 240; Franke v. City of St. Louis, 110 Mo. 516, 19 S.......