Hollocher v. Hollocher

• Decision Date: 31 January 1876
• Parties: JOSEPH C. HOLLOCHER, et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. MICHAEL L. HOLLOCHER, et al., Defendants in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

62 Mo. 267

JOSEPH C. HOLLOCHER, et al., Plaintiffs in Error,

v.MICHAEL L. HOLLOCHER, et al., Defendants in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1876.

Error to St. Louis Circuit Court.

P. E. Bland & A. McElhinney, for Appellants, cited Willan vs. Willan, 2 Dow., 282; Clarkson vs. Hanway, 2 P. Wm., 203; Watt vs. Grove, 2 Sch. & Lef., 501; Peacock vs. Monk, 1 Ves. Sen., 127; Id., 3 Starkie, 1004; Belden vs. Seymore, 8 Conn., 314; Washb. Real Prop., 328-9; Kerr Frauds & Mist., 191; Schunerhorn vs. Vanderheyden, 1 John., 139; Howes vs. Barker, 3 Johns., 508; Mangley vs. Hauer, 7 Johns., 341; Betts vs. Union Bank of Maryland, 1 Har. & Gil., 200; 1 Phil. Con., 426; Hildreth vs. Lands, 2 John. Ch., 35; Henders' Lessee vs. Longworth, 11 Wheat., 214; Freland vs. Eldridge, 19 Mo., 325; Cadwalader vs. West, 48 Mo., 493; Kerr Frauds & Mist., 193; Dent vs. Beaumont, 4 Milne & Cr., 277; Peel vs. ____, 16 Ves. Jr., 157; Proctor vs. Robinson, 35 Beav., 29; Coulson vs. Allison, 2 De G. F. & J., 525; Price vs. Price, 1 De G. M. & G., 308.H. D. Laughlin, for Respondents, cited Rackhill vs. Spraggs, 9 Ind., 30; Meeker vs. Meeker, 16 Conn., 383; Jones vs. Jones, 12 Ind., 386; Fontaine vs. Bank, 57 Mo., 552; Wheler vs. Billings, 38 N. Y., 263; McCrea v. Purmont, 16 Wend., 460.

NAPTON, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This action was brought by the adult children of Michael and Mary Hollocher against the minor brothers and sisters of the plaintiffs, and the mother of them all, and her trustee, Ch. F. Blatteau, to have certain deeds made by the father, Michael, and his wife Mary, to one of the plaintiffs, and by said plaintiff to Blatteau, for the sole use and benefit of Mary, the mother of all the plaintiffs and defendants, except said trustee, set aside and declared void.

The allegations in the petition are, that Michael Hollocher, who was dead before this suit was brought, was addicted to the use of ardent spirits to such extent as to render him infirm and weak of mind, and unfit to manage his own affairs, because of habitual inebriation; that his wife, the said defendant Mary exercised great influence and control over him, and fraudulently contrived to secure all the real estate of said Michael, and also the personal estate, to her own separate and sole use, and, to effect this, persuaded the said Michael to execute a certain deed bearing date the 17th of October, 1863, conveying all the real and personal estate of said Michael to their son, Joseph Hollocher.

The plaintiffs aver that the consideration expressed in said deed was purely nominal and fictitious, and grossly inadequate; that the grantee, Joseph, was absent from the State at the time, and knew nothing of the execution of said deed, and paid no consideration for the same; that at the request of the grantors, the said grantee, Joseph, came back to this State and undertook the management of his father's business, and, being ignorant of the fraudulent designs of his mother, accepted and held under said deed, and held the property for the benefit of the family, and to save the property from the mismanagement of his father; that his mother requested him to convey this property to Blatteau in trust for her sole and separate use, claiming that the same was to be for the benefit of all the family, and ultimately to go to all the children. This representation is alleged to have been false and fraudulent, and contrived for the purpose of securing the whole property to herself. It was averred that said Joseph, the plaintiff, confiding in these representations, conveyed the property to the trustee, Blatteau, for the sole and separate use of the defendant, Mary. The consideration named in all the deeds is averred to have been nominal, and the deeds are asked to be set aside on the ground of fraud and undue influence of Mary upon her husband, Michael.

The answers, both of the trustee, Blatteau, and the defendant, Mary, etc., were denials of every allegation in the petition. The case was referred, and the referee took all the testimony in the case, which is voluminous, and recommended the dismissal of the petition. This report was confirmed, exceptions taken, and an appeal granted.

The evidence clearly established the following facts:

Michael Hollocher and his wife had by their joint labor, in the course of 25 years, accumulated a property estimated at about $20,000 in value. This was done in various pursuits, first, by the profits of a dairy farm in the vicinity of this city, next, by a grocery story on the Gravois road, and lastly, by a large brewery in Manchester. In all these employments Mrs. Hollocher was not merely assisting, as is most usual in this country, by the faithful discharge of those domestic duties which naturally devolve on a wife, but was an active participant in all the labors of the dairy, the grocery and the brewery.

Previous to 1860, Michael Hollocher seems to have been rather an intemperate man, but not so much so as to excite particular observation; but after that date, and especially after his removal to Manchester, he became an habitual drunkard. There were intervals, of course, during which he was entirely competent to transact business, and there were also protracted fits of intoxication, in which he was subject to imposition. From the first period of the married life of these people, of which the record gives any information, the husband had great confidence in his wife's judgment, and scarcely made any movement without consulting her. She seems to have been the active and ruling partner, but their relations were always harmonious, and the deference of the husband was based on a consciousness of her superior discretion.

In 1863, Michael Hollocher consulted his wife as to the policy of transferring his estate to her. He had made some trades in his “sprees,” as he called them, which subsequent reflection satisfied him were injudicious. The husband then went to St. Louis to see Mr. Blatteau, a friend and an acquaintance, and informed him of his wish to transfer all his estate to his wife.

It is not clear, in the recollection of Mr. Blatteau, whether Mrs. Hollocher aceompanied her husband in this visit; Michael Hollocher was, however, then sober. Mr. Blatteau told him that the law did not allow such conveyances from a husband to his wife, and that he had better convey to some third person, and then have a conveyance from such third person to his wife, or to a trustee, for her use. After consultation with his wife, it was agreed that their son Joseph should be selected as the grantee, and ultimately Mr. Blatteau was requested to have a conveyance drawn up to this son Joseph, who was then about 21 years old. The deed was accordingly prepared, conveying all the property of Hollocher and his wife to their oldest son, Joseph, who was not in the county at that time. Mr. Blatteau states, that at the execution of the deed, Michael Hollocher was sober.

Joseph was then sent for, and he came over from Illinois and took possession under this deed. He married shortly afterwards and brought his wife to his father's house, but the father became dissatisfied with the condition of affairs, and requested his wife to get the other deed, which would place the property entirely under her control. Joseph, the son, and grantee in the deed, consented to this, and then executed the two deeds to Blatteau, conveying the entire property to this trustee for the sole and separate use of his mother. These deeds were executed in a few months after the first deed.

There was no money paid for the first deed, and none for the second and third, except that, before the son would execute these last deeds, his mother paid to him $2,000, partly to pay off mortgages, and partly for services he had rendered after his removal to Manchester. The first deed to Joseph Hollocher was executed in October, 1863, and the deeds from...