Hatcher v. Hatcher
| Decision Date | 10 March 1897 |
| Citation | 39 S.W. 479,139 Mo. 614 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Parties | HATCHER v. HATCHER et al. |
1. The owner of 160 acres of mortgaged land deeded 60 acres of it to her son, and 60 acres to her son-in-law, on condition that they procured the release of the remaining 40 acres. The then market value of the land did not exceed the amount of the mortgage, but in a few years such value greatly increased. In an action by the grantor to set the deeds aside, she alleged that the son made fraudulent representations as to an impending foreclosure, to induce her to convey, that they might the more readily sell it or secure a loan on it, and thus pay the mortgage, and that after reimbursing themselves she was to have what was left. Such allegations were not sustained by the evidence, and it was shown that it was on her solicitation that defendants agreed to the transaction. Held, that the deeds should not be canceled.
2. In an action to cancel deeds made nine years previously, on the ground of fraud, it appeared that in a few years after the deeds were made the land greatly increased in value. Though plaintiff, during the nine years, knew that defendants had sold parts of it at large prices, and that from other parts, leased for mining purposes, defendants were receiving large royalties, she did not claim any part of the purchase money or royalty received by them. Held, that plaintiff's laches precluded a recovery.
3. Where deeds are made to the grantor's son and son-in-law, the relation existing between the parties is not such as to cast on the grantees the burden of showing that the transaction was free from fraud or undue influence.
Appeal from circuit court, Jasper county; W. M. Robinson, Judge.
Action by Paulina J. Hatcher against Benjamin F. Hatcher and Jacob Litteral. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Thomas & Hackney, for appellant. McReynolds & Halliburton, for respondents.
This is a suit to set aside four deeds made by plaintiff to defendants, two to each one of them for 60 acres of land, — in all, 120 acres, — in Jasper county. The first two are quitclaim deeds made in March, 1885. The last two are warranty deeds made in May, 1886. The petition was filed January 31, 1894. The trial resulted in the dismissal of plaintiff's bill, and a judgment in favor of defendants against her for costs. Plaintiff appealed.
On March 2, 1885, plaintiff was the owner of 160 acres of land in Jasper county, 120 of which are involved in this litigation. Defendant Benjamin F. Hatcher is her son, and the defendant Litteral is her son-in-law, having married her eldest daughter. At the time of the commencement of this suit, plaintiff had seven living children, — three sons and four daughters, — the youngest being about 28 years of age. On May 4, 1877, plaintiff executed to her brother, John C. Webb, a mortgage on all of her land, 160 acres, to secure the payment of a loan of $1,158, and on January 4, 1882, she executed to him another mortgage on the same land to secure the payment of an additional loan of $1,170.75. Both loans were evidenced by notes executed by her, bearing 10 per cent. interest per annum. The total amount at the time of the execution of the deeds in question was $2,308.75 principal, with several years' interest past due. John C. Webb died April 12, 1883, and his son E. T. Webb qualified as executor of his estate. His second annual settlement as such executor became due in May, 1885. E. T. Webb was desirous of settling up his father's estate, and plaintiff became impressed with the idea that she would have to sell the land in order to raise the money to pay off the deed of trust liens, or else all the land would be sold to satisfy them, and pass out of the hands of the family. But there was no immediate danger of such a result, as the executor had no intention of closing the deeds of trust until it was necessary to do so in the discharge of his duties as executor. Whether this impression upon the mind of the plaintiff was created by the defendant B. F. Hatcher, or was caused by the surrounding circumstances, the evidence was conflicting. At any rate, she had been for some time trying to sell the land, or a part of it, to satisfy the liens, and had been unable to do so. She offered it during the years of 1881, 1882, and 1883 at $30 per acre. She testified, in effect, that she was induced by the repeated importunities of Ben to convey the land to him and Litteral, with the expectation that they would sell enough of it to pay off the liens, and that she would get the balance, and under this belief she was induced to convey the land to him and his co-defendant, Litteral. Upon the other hand, the evidence tended to show that she, of her own accord, proposed to Ben to take a deed for the 120 acres in controversy, and assume and pay off the liens, and release the other 40-acre tract to her, and that he declined to do so; that she then wrote or had written a letter to the defendant Litteral, who lived in Arkansas, asking him to come up to Webb City, where she resided, and see about the land; that upon receipt of the letter he did come, and remained at her house and Ben's a week or more before any arrangement was made with respect to it; that she proposed to defendants, if they would pay off the liens and secure the release therefrom of the 40 not in suit, that she would deed to them the 120-acre tract in question; that this Litteral first refused to do, but finally consented upon the condition that E. T. Webb, the executor, would carry the mortgages another year, and the land was divided, and one-half deeded to him and one-half deeded to Ben. Defendants then saw the executor, who agreed to grant another year's indulgence on the debts then past due, and, upon reporting this fact to the plaintiff, it was agreed between her and defendants that the defendants should divide the land to suit themselves, and that she would make them a quitclaim deed to it. Defendants then went to the office of H. H. Murray, a notary public, and had him prepare the deeds, and plaintiff thereafter, in company with one of her daughters, went to his office, and she signed and acknowledged them before him. The deeds were delivered and recorded, and Litteral returned to his home in Arkansas. When the time arrived at which the mortgage debts were to be paid, it became necessary for defendants to borrow the money to pay them, and for that purpose they were compelled to give a mortgage on the land to secure the money thus borrowed. W. A. Daugherty, father-in-law of defendant Hatcher, was willing to let them have the money, but would not do so unless they first procured warranty deeds to the land from the plaintiff. They then went to plaintiff and explained the situation to her, and she agreed to make the warranty deeds — one to each of them — covering the same land contained...
To continue reading
Request your trial