Hoover v. Wright

• Decision Date: 12 May 1947
• Docket Number: No. 39929.,39929.
• Citation: Hoover v. Wright, 202 S.W.2d 83 (Mo. 1947)
• Parties: HOOVER v. WRIGHT et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

202 S.W.2d 83

HOOVER v. WRIGHT et al.

No. 39929.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

May 12, 1947.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clay County; James S. Rooney, Judge.

Action by Joe R. Hoover against William R. Wright and others for specific performance of a real estate contract. From an adverse judgment, the plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Simrall & Simrall, of Liberty, Harry S. Saunders, of Kansas City, and Conn Withers, of Liberty, for appellant.

Francis G. Hale and Arthur R. Kincaid, both of Liberty, and O. W. Watkins and O. W. Watkins, Jr., both of St. Joseph, for respondents.

WESTHUES, Commissioner.

Appellant, Joe R. Hoover, filed this suit seeking specific performance of a real estate sales contract. The trial court denied the relief sought and Hoover appealed. The defense interposed was, that at the time defendant, William R. Wright, signed the sales contract he was incapable of managing his affairs; also, that the consideration was grossly inadequate.

The subject matter of the alleged contract was a farm consisting of seven hundred and twenty acres located in Clay County, Missouri. The purchase price, as stipulated in the contract, was $72,000. Defendant, William R. Wright, owner of the land, had been engaged in feeding cattle for fifty years or more. From time to time he purchased land adjoining his farm. The last tract, containing 88 acres and for which he paid $100 per acre, was purchased in the year 1932 or 1933. The entire farm was in blue-grass and was used principally for grazing cattle. The evidence was, that Wright was a very successful business man up until about 1942, when, as his neighbors testified, "they noticed him slipping." His eyesight became very poor and his age, being past eighty-five, began to be very noticeable. Then too, he had sustained an injury and used a crutch to get about. Wright was married twice. His first wife died about the year 1920, and he married the defendant, Ruby Wright, in 1927. His second wife was made a defendant in this case. No children were born of either marriage.

Plaintiff, Hoover, was engaged in the livestock commission business. Flem Poff, who had lived in the Wright neighborhood and had known Wright for many years, was in plaintiff's employ as a buyer and seller of cattle. Poff had frequently purchased cattle from Wright and sold cattle to him for Hoover. In the spring of 1944, Wright purchased about two hundred head of cattle through Poff and placed them on his farm to feed on the grass through the summer. The latter part of November, 1944, Poff in company with two buyers of cattle visited the Wright farm and while there one of them bought the two hundred head of cattle. Plaintiff, Hoover, received a commission on this sale. On the day these cattle were moved from the Wright farm Poff and Wright engaged in a conversation during which Wright is alleged to have said that he was going to sell his farm. On Poff's inquiry as to the purchase price, Wright said he would sell for $100 per acre. Poff gave this information to Hoover and on the same day Hoover gave Poff a check for $5,000, payable to Wright, which was to be delivered to him as a down payment on the farm. Poff gave this check to Wright the next day and informed him that Hoover was going to prepare a sales contract. This contract was prepared and signed by Hoover and the following day Poff took it to the Wright home. After some discussion Poff took Wright and his wife to Plattsburg, Missouri, where they signed the contract at the First National Bank in the presence of Horace Riley, president of the bank. The contract was then taken to Hoover. There was no dispute with reference to the facts above stated.

After the contract had been signed by the Wrights things began to happen. It seems that Mrs. Wright was not satisfied and signed the contract reluctantly. Poff and Wright both so testfied. Mrs. Wright, when asked at the trial why she had signed the contract, replied that she was afraid not to do so. Be that as it may, the evidence discloses that a few days after the contract was signed Mr. Riley, president of the bank, and Mr. A. P. Fry, a brother of Wright's first wife, went to Kansas City and informed plaintiff, Hoover, that Wright claimed he had no recollection of having signed the sales contract and that he also claimed he did not do so. The circumstances of signing the contract were explained to Hoover. These men testified that Hoover promised to see the Wrights and talk with them about the matter, but it is conceded that Hoover did not do this. Later this suit was filed to enforce the contract.

In the meantime, however, and before this suit was filed, a proceeding was filed in the probate court for the purpose of inquiring into the sanity of Wright and having a guardian appointed for him. The probate court appointed an attorney to represent Mr. Wright. This attorney asked for and was granted time to investigate the matter and prepare for the trial. About ten days later the trial was had and the probate court adjudged Wright to be incapable of managing his own affairs and appointed Mr. Albert P. Fry as his guardian. This guardian was made a defendant in this case. Mr. Alan F. Wherritt, the attorney appointed by the probate court to represent Wright, testified that he made a thorough investigation and was unable to locate any witness in the Wright neighborhood whose evidence would be favorable to Mr. Wright. This adjudication was made by the probate court on January 25, 1945.

At the trial of the present lawsuit numerous witnesses who had known Mr. Wright for many years testified that he had been a good business man of strong mind, possessed with a determination to manage his own affairs. These same witnesses testified further that beginning in 1942 they noticed that Mr. Wright was "slipping"; that he became forgetful; that he lost his business acumen and depended upon others to a great extent. It was also shown in evidence that Wright's eyesight became very poor and he was unable to judge the grade of cattle; that during the years 1942, 1943 and 1944 he lost money on his cattle deals, not due to a changing market but due to the fact that he was not able to manage his affairs as he had in years gone by. Appellant urges that Wright made money during these years. Appellant's own figures, however, show the opposite. For example, in May, 1944, Wright purchased two hundred head of cattle at a cost of $15,045.15. These cattle were sold November 29, 1944, for $15,308.46, which was $263.31 more than the cost price. This is what appellant calls a net profit. It will be seen at a glance that there was actually a loss. The cost of the feed, interest on money borrowed to purchase the cattle and labor were not considered by appellant.

Many witnesses were of the opinion that due to Wright's age, his poor eyesight, forgetfulness and general impairment he was incapable of managing his own affairs. Appellant urges that the testimony of these witnesses should be disregarded because not based on any evidence showing that Wright was insane. That, however, was not necessary. It is true a lay witness cannot give his opinion as to the insanity of an individual unless he relates acts and conduct on part of the individual which are inconsistent with sanity, but in a specific performance case evidence of the defendant's physical condition and general health impairment are admissible and may be considered by the trial court. However, in addition to the lay witnesses, two doctors who were specialists in mental diseases testified that Wright was afflicted with arteriosclerosis of the brain, which was progressive in nature. It was their opinion that Wright, in November, 1944, was of unsound mind and incapable of managing his affairs. There was one doctor, also a specialist in mental cases, who testified for appellant that in his opinion Wright was of sound mind. This witness stated,...