Houghton v. West
| Decision Date | 09 September 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 45493,No. 2,45493,2 |
| Citation | 305 S.W.2d 407 |
| Parties | Theodore M. HOUGHTON, Respondent, v. Alta WEST, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Charles A. Powell, Jr., Macon, for appellant.
Harry L. Porter, Marceline, for respondent.
BOHLING, Commissioner.
Theodore M. Houghton, grantor, instituted this suit on December 10, 1954, to cancel his warranty deed to 'Dr. C. O. West and Alta West, husband and wife,' grantees, on the grounds of mental incapacity and undue influence. On January 23, 1955, Dr. West died, and plaintiff filed an amended petition naming Alta West as sole defendant. The chancellor found the issues in favor of plaintiff on each of the pleaded grounds. Defendant has appealed, and questions the correctness of the findings.
Plaintiff's evidence: Plaintiff was 82 years old when the deed was executed on December 19, 1953. It was filed for record May 24, 1954. It conveyed, reserving a life estate, grantor's 400 acre farm, located about four miles out of New Cambria, Macon County, Missouri, to said grantee for the recited consideration of 'One Dollar and other valuable consideration'; and contained the following covenant:
'This conveyance is made to Dr. C. O. West and Alta West, husband and wife, with full power of disposal, but said land or the proceeds of sale thereof are to be used for the establishment, erection, improvement and maintenance of the West Memorial Museum of New Cambria, Missouri, a museum dedicated to educational, historical, scientific and benevolent purposes.'
Defendant objected to plaintiff's competency to testify respecting the transaction by reason of the death of Dr. C. O. West and, plaintiff's counsel conceding the point, he was excused.
Mrs. West, called called to the stand by plaintiff, testified she knew of no money or other consideration passing to plaintiff for the deed, and she was not contending her husband bought the land from plaintiff.
Jack Rector started working for plaintiff in 1949, doing carpentry, painting and repair work. Plaintiff made his home with Mr. and Mrs. Rector in New Cambria after February, 1952. Later, Rector looked after plaintiff's farm and business affairs, particularly while plaintiff was in the hospital. After December, 1952, they had a written agreement covering Rector's services.
On December 7, 1953, plaintiff became very ill and was taken to the St. Francis Hospital in Marceline. He was still there at the time of trial, November, 1955. Rector visited plaintiff between 2 and 4 p.m. at least twice a week and, so far as material here, on December 7, 9, 12, 16, 19, and 22. Rector testified that plaintiff was so weak he stayed in bed and witness would shave him; that on December 12th plaintiff told him: ; and that on December 19th when he went in the room plaintiff asked:
He testified Dr. West accompanied him on practically all his trips to the hospital and on December 19th, Dr. West bent over plaintiff's bed and said: ; and on the trip on December 22nd told him: "Just sit steady until the fog settles and you'll get yours." Witness told him he did not know what he meant and "I'll tell you how long I'll sit steady, until you quit fooling with Theodore." He saw Dr. West frequently after December 22nd but Dr. West never mentioned that plaintiff had made a deed to him.
Mrs. Rector accompanied her husband to the hospital and stated that plaintiff's voice was weak, she could not understand him, and on one occasion Dr. West, after leaning over plaintiff's bed, said "I can't understand him"; that plaintiff appeared to be asleep most of the time, and, on cross-examination, that plaintiff did not know her every time she was there.
Harry Dowell had known plaintiff since 1908. He visited plaintiff between December 15th and 18th. Plaintiff 'didn't seem to know' him until told who he was. Plaintiff seemed to be weak and he had difficulty understanding plaintiff.
William Peterson had known plaintiff for twenty years. When he visited plaintiff on December 20th, plaintiff said: "I don't know who you are." Witness told him and plaintiff said: "Sure." "Well, I have had so many shots I don't know what I'm doing."
Virgil Houghton was a grand nephew of plaintiff. He testified he farmed plaintiff's land in 1953, and in November had a verbal understanding to farm it the next year. He and his wife took plaintiff some things the night of December 12th, it being plaintiff's birthday. He asked plaintiff about plowing some land and plaintiff told him to go ahead. He plowed some land that had not been plowed for forty years but stopped when Mr. Rector questioned him about it and said he would see plaintiff. He and his wife went to see plaintiff about the plowing on the night of December 20th, and plaintiff, according to Mr. Houghton, acted like he did not want to talk, kept shaking his head and hands, and witness finally understood he had rented the ground to the Stoddard brothers. Mrs. Houghton testified that on December 12th, plaintiff was weak and complained of his head hurting; that on the 20th plaintiff was 'awful nervous and shaky,' was weak, had to be helped, wasn't able to hold his head up, and that they finally understood he had rented the corn ground to the Stoddards, plaintiff saying, "I had to turn it over to them." Asked on cross-examination whether her husband said anything to plaintiff upon understanding plaintiff had rented to the Stoddards, Mrs. Houghton answered: 'No, because we didn't know whether he knew what he was talking about.'
'
William Houghton, plaintiff's nephew, visited plaintiff on the afternoon of the 20th. Plaintiff was asleep, but awakened in about thirty minutes, and, in answer to a question, told him he was 'awful sick.' Plaintiff was pale and nervous, talked like his tongue was thick, was inclined to sleep, and soon went back to sleep.
Chris Kornburst testified that he had been an employee of the St. Francis Hospital since 1946, and frequently helped care for patients, including plaintiff; that plaintiff was a bed-patient in December, 1953, was so weak he had to be helped to turn in bed and some one had to feed him; and that this condition continued through December, 1953, and part of January, 1954. Witness talked very little with plaintiff as plaintiff did not have much to say.
Dr. Robert W. Smith was Chief of Staff at St. Francis Hospital in Marceline. He testified that Dr. West often referred patients to him; that Dr. West brought plaintiff to the hospital and referred plaintiff to him; and that plaintiff was hospitalized the second time in December, 1952, and again in February, June, August and December, 1953. Dr. Smith had the responsibility of plaintiff's treatment in the hospital, but plaintiff was considered Dr. West's patient. Mr. Rector also testified that Dr. West treated plaintiff and was plaintiff's doctor.
Dr. Smith testified that on December 7, 1953, plaintiff had diabetes, considerable arteriosclerosis or hardening of the arteries, with encephalomalacia or softening of the brain, and perhaps, but not determined, carcinoma of the esophagus. Plaintiff was senile and his brain had been damaged by arteriosclerosis and worsened by uncontrolled diabetes. Plaintiff was undernourished, due to improper nutrition, attributed to his getting too much insulin and not to insufficient food. Plaintiff had permitted his diabetes to get out of control, which caused him to be very weak, feel bad and complain of pain. Plaintiff was given insulin, phenaphen, and some codeine during December, 1953. Plaintiff was placed on a diet and every day or two the insulin and his blood sugar were checked to balance the two. Dr. Smith stated there was a no material change in plaintiff's condition during December, 1953, and although his diabetes might have been under a little better control, it was not adequately controlled until January, 1954. Plaintiff's arteriosclerosis, which is progressive, had not improved up to the time of trial, November, 1955, but his physical condition had improved.
Dr. Smith stated persons in plaintiff's situation 'understand a little bit more' at times than at other times; that although it was possible for plaintiff to have a lucid period on December 19th, he did not have a definite recollection of plaintiff's condition on that day; that at that time one day was just like another for plaintiff; that the physical condition has a lot to do with it, and plaintiff's physical condition was practically the same for a month or six weeks after December 7, 1953.
Dr. Smith stated he made the rounds at the hospital and saw plaintiff at least once, possibly twice a day, and if he didn't see plaintiff, his associate did. Asked his opinion of plaintiff's ability to carry on ordinary business affairs in December, 1953, he answered: And, on cross-examination: Asked about his authorizing Virgil Houghton to plow, Dr. Smith answered: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steller v. Steller
...will of one person for the free will of the other. Horn v. Owens, Mo., 171 S.W.2d 585; Sebree v. Rosen, Mo., 349 S.W.2d 865; Houghton v. West, Mo., 305 S.W.2d 407; Peine v. Sater, Mo., 289 S.W.2d 101. A mere suspicion of undue influence or the opportunity of a defendant to have exerted such......
-
Flynn v. Union Nat. Bank of Springfield, 8220
...v. Heidsieck, Mo., 364 S.W.2d 583; Clark v. Powell, 351 Mo. 1121, 175 S.W.2d 842; 846; Been v. Jolly, Mo., 247 S.W.2d 840; Houghton v. West, Mo., 305 S.W.2d 407, 412; Sullivan v. Winer, Mo., 310 S.W.2d 917; Wright v. Stevens, supra; Michaelson v. Wolf, supra.11 Nelson v. Hammett, Mo., 189 S......
-
Hesse v. Wagner
...Undue influence must generally be inferred from all the facts and circumstances. Wilhoit v. Fite, Mo., 341 S.W.2d 806, 813; Houghton v. West, Mo., 305 S.W.2d 407. Wagner admitted in his testimony the existence of a confidential relationship. The trial court deemed the evidence sufficient fo......
-
Soper's Estate, Matter of
...or donor to act. Davis v. Pitti, 472 S.W.2d 382, 387(6) (Mo.1971); Wilhoit v. Fite, 341 S.W.2d 806, 813(1) (Mo.1960); Houghton v. West, 305 S.W.2d 407, 412(4) (Mo.1957). Usually, the question of undue influence arises in cases where the grantor, settlor or donor has made a gift or executed ......