Freeland v. Eldridge

• Decision Date: 31 January 1854
• Citation: 19 Mo. 325
• Parties: FREELAND, Respondent, v. ELDRIDGE, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

19 Mo. 325

FREELAND, Respondent,

v.ELDRIDGE, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1854.

1. Where the trial is by the court, and no motion for review is made, as required by the code the supreme court will only look to see whether the facts found support the judgment.

2. A conveyance obtained without sufficient consideration, from a man of weakened intellect, by a person having influence with him, practicing upon his passions, will be set aside.

Appeal from Weston Court of Common Pleas.

A. Leonard, for appellant.

1. The relief sought is exclusively a matter of equity jurisdiction, and the appeal therefore subjects the whole case, fact and law, to the review of this court.

2. The evidence does not repel the presumption of the fairness of the conveyance, or establish the alleged fraud.

Gardenhire, for respondent.

1. The facts found by the court below warranted the decree. 1 Sto. Eq. § 238; Bridgman v. Green, 2 Vesey, sr. 626; Clarkson v. Henway, 2 P. Will. Rep. 203; Griffith v. Robbins, 2 Madd. Rep. 105; Underwood v. Brockman, 4 Dana, 319.

2. No motion for review having been made, if the facts found warrant the conclusions of law pronounced upon them, the judgment will not be disturbed. Skinner v. Ellington, 15 Mo. 488.

GAMBLE, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

1. In this case the trial was by the court, and the judgment was rendered for the plaintiff. The decision of the court, finding the facts and pronouncing the law, was made, but no application for a review was made in conformity to the code of practice. This court can in such case look only to the decision of the court below, to see whether the facts found warrant the judgment which has been rendered.

2. The petition seeks to set aside a conveyance made by plaintiff to defendant, on the ground that it was obtained from the plaintiff without any consideration, and by practicing upon his fears, at a time when he was in a condition of mental imbecility, and incapable of managing his affairs; that the practices were such as to fill his weakened mind with apprehensions which were artfully encouraged by defendant, and by the wife of plaintiff, who was the daughter of defendant, and under the influence of those fears, and by the persuasion of the defendant and the wife of plaintiff, the conveyance was made.

The court finds that the conveyance of the land by plaintiff to defendant was without consideration; that a note for $1800, which was given by the defendant to his daughter, the...