Graves v. Graves

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Citation164 S.W. 496,255 Mo. 468
PartiesGRAVES v. GRAVES.
Decision Date03 March 1914

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Francois County; Chas. A. Killian, Judge.

Action by George W. Graves, by J. P. Cayce, guardian, against Amelia Graves. From a judgment on demurrer for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

This cause reached this court on a mandate from the St. Louis Court of Appeals because title to real estate is involved. Plaintiff and defendant are husband and wife. The present action is one brought in equity to set aside a judgment of the circuit court of St. Francois county, by which judgment the title to certain lands had been decreed out of George W. Graves and vested in Amelia Graves. Plaintiff charges that he is the owner of the lands in dispute, and that such judgment, although void (as alleged in the petition), is a cloud upon his title. In 1904, at the May term of the St. Francois county circuit court, Amelia Graves brought suit to have the title of about 376 acres divested out of George W. Graves and vested in her. The decree attacked in the case at bar did decree title in Amelia Graves, and divested George W. Graves, the husband, of all title thereto. That petition is attacked in this case, as well as the judgment and proceedings thereon. In that petition Mrs. Graves stated that she was a daughter of David P. Hall, who died seised and possessed of about 1,030 acres of land; that said land descended to her and the other children of David P. Hall, and that the heirs agreed upon a partition of the land; that the land involved in the instant action is the part given to her in such partition; that such partition was effected by the several heirs deeding to each other.

From this point the petition had best speak for itself, and such portion reads: "That said land descended to his said children and heirs in equal portions, share and share alike, and, for the purpose of dividing said inheritance, met upon said premises and mutually agreed upon a division thereof. This plaintiff with her husband thereupon executed a deed to each of the other said heirs, conveying to them her interest in each of the tracts selected by them. In consideration of her said conveyance, as aforesaid, the other said heirs were to execute to her their interest in the portion selected by her, but, when the time for executing said deed arrived, the defendant demanded that, since he was her husband, the title to her part of said land should be deeded to him, instead of to her (the said plaintiff), and boldly stated that, unless this was done, he would not work on said land or provide for plaintiff, whereupon this plaintiff objected and protested against such a conveyance of her property to him (her said husband) and refused to join in such a conveyance, but defendant still insisted that he must receive the title to her part of said land, and, again renewing his threats to not work thereon or provide this plaintiff with support, so impressed the plaintiff with the belief that if she should longer oppose him he would not only carry said threats into execution, but would otherwise conduct himself as to deprive her of all future happiness and render her condition in life intolerable. By reason of such belief and deep anxiety and stress of mind that it produced, this plaintiff was wholly deprived of the power of longer resisting her said husband's demands, and other heirs of said David P. Hall, deceased, to wit, Marinda McClenahan, née Hall, and Peter B. McClenahan, her husband, Edward D. Hall, and Mary J. Hall, at the instance and request of defendant, conveyed by a general warranty deed their interest in that part of said tract selected by plaintiff, as her part of her deceased father's land to her said husband, the defendant. Said land so conveyed is situated in St. Francois county, Mo., and is further described as follows, to wit: The N. ½ of the N. E. ¼ of section 25, township 38, range 5, and the N. E. ¼ of the S. E. ¼ of section 12, township 38, range 5, and the south part of the S. ½ of the S. E. ¼ of section 24, township 38, range 5, and the south part of the S. ½ of the S. W. ¼ of section 19, township 38, range 6, and the N. ½ of the N. E. ¼ of section 19, township 38, range 6, and the S. E. ¼ of the N. E. ¼ of section 19, township 38, range 6, and the N. E. ¼ of the N. W. ¼ of section 30, township 38, range 6, containing in the aggregate 375.80 acres. Plaintiff further states that, within a few years after the execution of the deed as aforesaid, plaintiff again protested against defendant holding the land that she had inherited from her deceased father, and to which she was entitled, and insisted upon a conveyance of the same to her, whereupon the said defendant stated to her that the land belonged to her, and that he would reconvey the same to her; that this promise to reconvey was rendered from time to time until about two years ago, when he finally notified her that he would not only not reconvey the land to her but that he had consulted a lawyer, and intended to have her ejected from the premises. Plaintiff further states that defendant had nothing when they were married, but that they immediately moved on the premises in dispute, where both plaintiff and defendant lived until about two years ago, when defendant left plaintiff without any cause or provocation whatever, and has refused to provide any means of support for plaintiff. Plaintiff further states that she is in sole possession of said premises and by working and cultivating them is able to provide herself with a scanty support, but if deprived of them would be wholly dependent upon charity for the remainder of her life. Plaintiff further states that the defendant has been declared by the probate court of St. Francois county, Mo., to be insane, and is now confined in Hospital No. 4 of Missouri for the Insane, and plaintiff would therefore ask the court to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the defendant in this proceeding in the manner provided by law. Whereupon plaintiff prays the court to declare the defendant (or guardian representing him) a trustee as to the lands last above described and order him to convey said property to her by good and sufficient conveyance, and for such other orders as to the court may seem mete and proper in the premises, and for costs."

In that case the summons was served upon George W. Graves. It seems that he had no guardian at that time. Now, reverting to the petition in the case before us at this time, it will perhaps be best to set out the material portions thereof, because the case passed off upon a demurrer below. After charging that he was and still is the owner of the land in question, and that he was adjudged insane in 1901 by the probate court of the county, and the previous suit and judgment, and that a guardian (now representing him in this suit) was appointed for him, the petition then thus proceeds: "Plaintiff further states that the petition constituting defendant's alleged cause of action in the suit instituted as aforesaid by her showing upon its face that the legal title to all of said lands and property aforesaid, and in her said petition described, was at the time in this plaintiff showing upon its face that this plaintiff, George W. Graves, defendant therein, was a person of unsound mind; that said petition further shows upon its face that said George W. Graves, the plaintiff herein, had been found and adjudged to be a person of unsound mind prior to the institution of said suit by the defendant herein, Amelia A. Graves, and further shows on its face that said Graves, this plaintiff, was, at the time of the institution of this suit by defendant, an inmate of State Hospital No. 4 at Farmington, Mo., for the Insane; that said petition aforesaid of defendant further shows upon its face that this plaintiff, George W. Graves, has no legally...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Lamb v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • March 1, 1926
    ... ... Proc. 1715; Fugate v. State, 87 So. 554, 85 Miss ... 94, 107 Am. St. Rep. 268, 3 Ann. Cas. 326; Madden v ... Ferguson, 182 Ill.App. 210; Graves v. Graves, ... 164 S.W. 496, 255 Mo. 468; Smith v. Kingsley, 19 ... Wend. (N. Y.) 620; Wharton's Crim. Pl. & Pr. (9th Ed.) ... 779b; 5 Ency. Pl. & ... ...
  • Young v. Pressgrove
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 10, 1946
    ... ... 851; Riggs v ... Moise, 128 S.W.2d 632, 344 Mo. 177. (3) Respondent was ... properly appointed as guardian ad litem. Graves v ... Graves, 164 S.W. 496, 265 Mo. 468. (4) The court ... properly set aside the guardian ad litem's stipulation ... Campbell v. Campbell, 165 ... ...
  • Koewing v. Greene County Bldg. & Loan Ass'n of Springfield
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 14, 1931
    ...112, 226 S.W. 853; Beattie Mfg. Co. v. Gerardi, 166 Mo. 142; Baldridge v. Ryan, 260 S.W. 536; Hubbard v. Slavens, 218 Mo. 622; Graves v. Graves, 255 Mo. 468. (5) Delivery of whether by agent or other custodian, contrary to conditions or instructions, passes no title. 1 Mechem on Agency (2 E......
  • Koewing v. Building & Loan Assn.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 14, 1931
    ...112, 226 S.W. 853; Beattie Mfg. Co. v. Gerardi, 166 Mo. 142; Baldridge v. Ryan, 260 S.W. 536; Hubbard v. Slavens, 218 Mo. 622; Graves v. Graves, 255 Mo. 468. (5) Delivery of deed, whether by agent or other custodian, contrary to conditions or instructions, passes no title. 1 Mechem on Agenc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT