"Rebecca Huffman, who has died since this appeal has been pending, and whose executor has been made a party herein, was the widow, and the other parties, plaintiffs and the defendant, are the children and heirs at law of Jacob F. Huffman, deceased, who died intestate February 29, 1904. Six days before his death he executed a deed conveying to his son William T., the defendant, 120 acres of land. The aim of this suit is to set aside that deed, on the alleged grounds that the intestate was not of sufficient mental capacity to make it, and that defendant exerted undue influence over him. The trial resulted in a finding and judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiffs appealed.
"The evidence for the plaintiffs established the fact that the intestate, then an old man of 74 years, and his wife, Rebecca, 69, in September, 1903, moved from his farm, on which he had before been living, to the home of defendant, which was another farm, and he lived there, in his son's home, until he died; that is, from some day not specified, in September, 1903, to February 23, 1904. Both these farms belonged to him; that is, the title to both was in him. For two or three years he had been in very bad health. According to the widow's testimony, he had asthma, rheumatism, heart trouble, kidney trouble, and other bodily infirmities. He required great care and tender treatment, and these he received at her hands. Questioned as to his mental condition on the day the deed was executed, she said, `It was very unbalanced, his mind was, his condition in every way.' Again she said: `His mental condition was bad. * * * He could not remember anything scarcely at all. He never said anything; he never talked any that day. If I asked him anything, he would not answer. All he wanted was a little milk.' Dr. McMurry, the physician who attended him, and saw him on the 26th of February, which was three days after the execution of the deed, and three days before his death, a witness for plaintiffs, described his physical condition as very bad—much as Mrs. Huffman had described it. He was then asked to say `as to his mental condition, as to whether or not in your opinion he was able to make contracts and transact ordinary business? A. He would only talk when I talked to him, and then give me very short answers. He seemed to understand what I said to him, and I understood what he said. His answers were simply "Yes" or "No," or
"Feeling very bad" is about the extent of what he said. Q. You have not answered my question. I asked you whether or not, in your opinion as a physician, whether he was mentally able to make contracts and carry on ordinary business? A. Well he was in no shape for a general line of business. He was sufficiently rational to appreciate what I said and give me a rational answer; but, to judge of the degree and strength and liability, I could not draw a line there hardly.' That is the substance of the plaintiffs' testimony on the point of mental incapacity.
"On the subject of undue influence the plaintiffs' testimony tended to show that after the old man moved to defendant's home, the latter attended to the renting of his farm for him, and attended to negotiating some real estate loans for him. That on the day before the deed was executed defendant went to Paris, the county seat, and employed an attorney, who was also a notary public, to come out to the farm and write the deed and take the acknowledgment. He insisted that the lawyer come the next afternoon, and the lawyer went as he agreed to do, arriving rather late in the afternoon because of obstructions in the road caused by rain-flooded creeks. That when the lawyer arrived, defendant met him at the fence, and conducted him into the house and to the door of the room where the old man and Mrs. Huffman were, and announced to them that Mr. Rodes (the attorney) had arrived. That Mrs. Huffman had not been informed that the attorney was expected or what his business was. Her account of the meeting and what occurred is substantially as follows: Mr. Rodes stated that he had been requested by William (the defendant) to come out there; and he requested to have William called into the room, which was done. When William came, Rodes said he was ready for information as to the lines of the 120 acres, and he and William went out on the porch, and there William showed him how the lines were. Then they came back into the room. The paper that Rodes had prepared became blurred with water, and he had to write another. After it was written, he read it to William, and asked him if it was right, and William said it was. Rodes said, `Mrs. Huffman, you must sign it,' but she said she would not, because they had not given her any of the improvements, and she would not sign it until Ed. Huffman was provided for. Then there was some wrangling, in which she told them that her husband was not competent to make a deed. She said: `Well, we fussed a while, and I looked at my husband. He looked so poor and bad, and he was sitting there not hearing or seeing anything at all, I just thought not to have any trouble I will sign it.' She also said the deed was not read to her or her husband. She did not see the deed in her husband's hands at all, and did not think he delivered it to William. Plaintiffs' testimony also tended to show that this 120 acres was the only land the old man owned that was not incumbered, and that it was worth $500 to $1,000 more than the other 120 acres.
"On the part of the defendant the testimony was to the following effect: Neighbors and acquaintances testified that they called on the old man, and he recognized them and talked with them rationally. He complained of his physical infirmities, and said he was suffering, but they testified that they saw no impairment of his mental faculties. The family had come to Missouri from Illinois, and this 240-acre farm, 120 acres of which were covered by this deed, was purchased with the proceeds of the sale of their farm in Illinois, in which the defendant had an interest. The old man had, at several times in past years, been heard to say that half the farm belonged to William, and he refused to put this 120-acres tract into a mortgage he was giving for money he was then borrowing, because he said it rightfully belonged to William, and when on one such occasion it was suggested to him by the bank cashier in the course of the transaction that, if it belonged to William, he ought to give William a deed to it, he said it was unnecessary because all the family understood it. The 120 acres in question were not more valuable than the remaining 120, except it contained more improvements, which were not very valuable.
"The testimony of Mr. Rodes was that he was employed by William to go out to the farm and write the deed and take the acknowledgments, and that William paid him for the work after it was done. As to what occurred after he arrived at the farm, he said, in substance, that when he entered the room he was cold, and he first warmed himself by the stove; then turned to Mr. Huffman, and said, `It is growing late, and we had better get about that business.' `I asked him, "What land is it you want to deed to William?" He says, "I want you to deed all of this land that is unincumbered to William."' Witness then prepared the deed, filling in the names, and when he got down to stating the consideration he asked, `Mr. Huffman, what consideration do you want put in this deed?' He said, `$40, just what the land cost,' referring to the cost price years ago. William was not in the room at that time, only Mr. and Mrs. Huffman and the attorney. Mrs. Huffman made objection to signing the deed, because she said there was some mistake in the lines that gave William the house. Then she called William into the room. He pointed out the lines (it does not appear from the evidence from what document the pointing out was done, but presumably from a map). Then William went out of the room again, and then Mrs. Huffman said some provision should be made for Eddie, because of some improvement
Eddie had put on the Illinois farm. Rodes said he knew nothing about that. Then Mrs. Huffman called William into the room again, and requested that he remain there. Then she and William discussed her proposal to make provision for Eddie. William contended that the alleged improvement made by Eddie was of no value. The old man interrupted the...
