Gregor v. Hyde

• Decision Date: 21 May 1894
• Docket Number: 338.
• Parties: Gregory v. HYDE.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

62 F. 107

Gregory v. HYDE.

No. 338.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

May 21, 1894

F. L Soper, for appellant.

C. H Winsor and A. B. Kittredge, filed brief for appellee.

Before CALDWELL and SANBORN, Circuit Judges, and THAYER, District Judge.

THAYER District Judge, .

The appellant filed a suit in the circuit court for Lake county S.D., which was subsequently removed to the United States circuit court for that state, to cancel a deed for a quarter section of land situated in Lake county, S.D., which the appellant, John Gregory, had conveyed to the appellee, S. Y Hyde, on the 6th day of July, 1889. The suit to cancel the conveyance was begun in the month of March, 1892. In his complaint the appellant charged that he was induced to execute the deed under compulsion of certain threats made by the appellee,-- that he would cause the arrest and imprisonment of the complainant's son, Alexander M. Gregory, on the charge of embezzlement, if the deed was not executed. The bill was dismissed by the circuit court on final hearing, and the complainant has brought the case to this court by appeal.

The facts disclosed by the record, as we find them, are these: For some three years prior to 1889, Alexander M. Gregory, the son, had had charge of an elevator belonging to the firm of Hodges & Hyde, at Wells, in the state of Minnesota, and had been engaged at that place in the purchase and sale of grain, live stock, and coal for and in behalf of the firm of Hodges & Hyde, whose chief place of business and residence was at La Crosse, Wis. In the transaction of such business the complainant's son had appropriated to his own use, and had spent, funds of the firm of Hodges & Hyde, to an amount exceeding $3,000, and had done so under circumstances which undoubtedly rendered him amenable to prosecution for the crime of embezzlement. The son had fled from Wells shortly prior to July 1, 1889, leaving his wife and family there; but he had returned home before the execution of the deed in controversy, and he appears to have been present when the deed was executed by his father. No warrant for his arrest had then been sued out, and no warrant for his arrest was afterwards obtained, or attempted to be obtained. Hearing of his son's defalcation, the father came from Madison, S.D., to Wells, Minn., on or about the 6th day of July, 1889, and at the latter place had an interview with the appellee, S. Y. Hyde, who was one of the members of the firm of Hodges & Hyde, which resulted in his executing the conveyance for the tract of land aforesaid, to which the present controversy relates. Contemporaneously with the execution and delivery of the deed by the complainant, Hodges & Hyde executed and delivered an acquittance in favor of Alexander M. Gregory, the son, in which they acknowledged to have received from him 'the sum of sixteen hundred dollars, in full settlement of all claims and demands of every name and nature whatsoever, without any reservation. ' The land conveyed to Hyde appears to have been worth at that time about the sum stated in the above-mentioned receipt. The deed thereto was recorded in Lake county, S.D., on the 9th day of July, 1889; and there the matter rested until this suit was begun, nearly three years thereafter, in the month of March, 1892.

The view that we have been compelled to take of the questions discussed by counsel does not require us to decide whether, in point of fact, the appellant was constrained to make the deed by threats that his son would be prosecuted criminally for the crime of embezzlement if the deed was not executed. It is sufficient to say with respect to that issue that, if it was necessary to determine it, there is some evidence in the records which tends strongly to show that he was not so induced to make the deed solely through fear, induced by threats, that if it was not made his son would be arrested and tried upon a criminal charge. The appellant appears to have known Mr. Hyde, of the firm of Hodges & Hyde, long and intimately (for at least 30 years, according to his own statement); and, in a letter written by him to his son's wife some days before any threats of an arrest could have been made, he expressed, in the strongest terms, his intention to do all in his power to make good to Hodges & Hyde, 'to the last cent,' the amount of his son's defalcation. Under these circumstances, we consider it not improbable that, in executing the deed, he did precisely what he had fully resolved to do before he had met Mr. Hyde, and before any prosecution could have been threatened. Many a father has sacrificed a considerable portion of his own means to pay his son's debts, and save his credit and business reputation, even when the debts so paid were contracted in such manner that they would not furnish the slightest excuse for a criminal prosecution. It does not seem to us improbable that the appellant was actuated by equally honorable motives in endeavoring to cancel his son's liabilities, if we view the transaction in the light of the sentiments which he expressed in the letter written to his daughter-in-law.

But it is unnecessary to pursue this line of thought further. It is more important to inquire and determine whether the threats complained of by the appellant constituted such duress as will serve to invalidate a deed or other contract, under the laws of the state...