Hartley v. Hartley

• Decision Date: 01 March 1898
• Citation: 44 S.W. 1044,143 Mo. 216
• Parties: HARTLEY v. HARTLEY.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

44 S.W. 1044

143 Mo. 216

HARTLEY v. HARTLEY.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

March 1, 1898.

EQUITY — APPEAL — FINDINGS.

Findings in equity suit on oral testimony will be disturbed only where there has been manifest disregard of evidence.

Appeal from circuit court, Audrain county; E. M. Hughes. Judge.

Suit by Benjamin Hartley against Leslie C. Hartley. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

W. W. Fry, for appellant. Geo. Robertson, for respondent.

BURGESS, J.

This is an equitable proceeding by the father against his son, instituted in the circuit court of Audrain county for an accounting and judgment for whatever sum may be found due plaintiff as the result. The trial resulted in a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appealed.

Plaintiff alleges in his petition that defendant converted to his own use moneys and notes belonging to him amounting to $3,784.65, and that in 1892 he gave to plaintiff a duebill for $750 for a portion of said indebtedness, which defendant thereafter took possession of to keep for him upon the promise that he (defendant) would take care of him during his lifetime; and that afterwards, in August, 1892, he drove plaintiff from his home, and has since failed to support and care for him. It was also averred in the petition that in April, 1891, plaintiff was the owner of lot 3, and the west half of lot 2, block 1, in Rawling's addition to the city of Mexico, worth $600; and at that date defendant represented to plaintiff that he desired to purchase lot No. 16 of Sparks' addition to said city, and proposed that, if plaintiff would convey to defendant plaintiff's said real estate, so he could raise money upon it to aid him in purchasing said lot No. 16, defendant would have said lot No. 16 conveyed to plaintiff and defendant jointly; that plaintiff, relying upon said representation, agreed to and did convey said property to defendant in consideration of $600, which defendant afterwards sold to one Tucker for $600, and on the 18th day of April, 1891, purchased said lot No. 16, and took a deed to the same in his own name, instead of the plaintiff's, which fact plaintiff did not discover until shortly before the institution of this suit. Defendant, by answer, denied that he converted to his own use any of the notes or moneys of plaintiff, or any of plaintiff's property; denied that he owed plaintiff anything; and averred that he had accounted to plaintiff, and that in April, 1892, he and plaintiff had a full settlement of all transactions between them, and that defendant at that time gave plaintiff a note for the balance due him, which has been paid. The answer also denied generally all other allegations in the petition. In 1885 plaintiff owned a farm in Audrain county, consisting of 160 acres, upon which he lived with his family. He was the father of five children, — three daughters and two sons. One of the sons is the defendant in this suit. The other son's name was William. Plaintiff was twice married, and William was the only child by the last wife. Plaintiff being indebted to his daughters and his son Leslie for property of theirs which he had theretofore used, in 1865 he deeded to them the farm in payment of that indebtedness. At the time plaintiff moved to Mexico, Mo., he claims to have had about $3,000, but it appears from the testimony that this was an overestimate, and that he did not have more than $1,000, the principal part of which he invested in real estate in that city. William Hartley's mother died some time prior to 1890, leaving as her separate property about $600 or $650 in money, which the plaintiff...