Jenkins v. Rhodes

• Decision Date: 07 February 1907
• Citation: 56 S.E. 332,106 Va. 564
• Parties: JENKINS et al. v. RHODES et al.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

106 Va. 564

56 S.E. 332

JENKINS et al.

v.RHODES et al.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Feb.7, 1907.

1. Deeds—Validity—Undue Influence.

On an issue as to whether conveyances of land to the grantor's sons had been brought about by undue influence, it appeared that the grantor and his sons resided in the same neighborhood, and that, when the sons learned that the grantor was about to marry a woman of unenviable reputation, they attempted to prevent the marriage, but, finding that to be impossible, suggested that, in order to avoid the presence of the widow in the neighborhood after his death. he should convey to one of the sons land which had been turned over to him previously, and sell his home place, reserving a life interest, whereupon he acted on the suggestion, receiving from one son, to whom he conveyed the home place, a bond for adequate consideration. It appeared that the grantor had always intended to convey to the other son the land which had been turned over to him and for which he had rendered services. Held, that the evidence was insufficient to show undue influence.

2. Dower — Deed in Fraud of Marital Eights of Wife.

The evidence was insufficient to show that the conveyance was in fraud of the marital rights of the wife.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Isle of Wight County.

Suit by Josiah L. Jenkins and others against J. E. Rhodes and others. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainants appeal. Affirmed.

Ro. W. Withers and Bradford W. Kilby, for appellants.

J. U. Burgess and Jeffries & Lawless, for appellees.

HARRISON, J. The bill In this case was filed by Josiah L. Jenkins and Irving K. Jenkins, two grandsons of Jethro H. Rhodes, and Susan P. Rhodes, the widow of Jethro H. Rhodes, for the purpose of having set aside two deeds made by Jethro H. Rhodes on the 8th day of January, 1890, one conveying to his son J. E. Rhodes a tract of land containing about 100 acres, and the other conveying to his son J. P. Rhodes a tract of land containing about 50 acres, upon the ground that these conveyances were made as the result of the fraudulent and undue influence of the grantees therein upon the grantor. It is charged that, if these deeds are allowed to stand, the grantees will have secured unto themselves greater shares of the estate of the grantor than they are justly entitled to, to the great disadvantage and injury of the complainants, and In fraud of their rights.

On the day the deeds were executed, Jethro H. Rhodes was married to the female complainant, Susan P. Rhodes, who was, prior to her marriage, Susan P. Spivey; and It is further charged on her behalf that the unlawful and fraudulent procurement of such deeds was without the knowledge and consent of Susan P. Spivey and in fraud of her marital rights.

Charles J. Rhodes, another grandson of the grantor in these deeds, was named as a party plaintiff in this bill; but he has filed a petition in the case, saying that he never authorized any one to bring a suit for him attacking the validity of the deeds in question, and that he desires to be made a party defendant and to have his petition treated as an answer to the bill, the allegations of which he denies in toto, saying that he has known the defendants J. E. and J. P. Rhodes all of his life, and believes them to be morally incapable of doing what they are charged with in the bill.

The bill makes as parties defendant the grantees in the two deeds mentioned and all of the other heirs at law of Jethro H. Rhodes, 12 in number, 2 of whom were infants. The defendants J. E. and J. P. Rhodes, the grantees in the deeds, filed a joint and separate answer, in which they utterly deny every material allegation of the bill and emphatically affirm that no unlawful or fraudulent influence was exercised by them, or any one for them, upon their father, to procure his execution of the deeds in question; that they wish to be understood as categorically denying every sentence contained in the bill which charges fraud, force, or deceit, or any other wrong. The other 10 adult heirs, who are made parties defendant, file a joint and separate answer, in which they deny each and every allegation of the bill tending to charge fraud on the part of J. P. and J. E. Rhodes in connection with the execution of the deeds mentioned therein. The two infant defendants answer by guardian ad litem, and commit their rights and interests to the protection of the court.

A mass of evidence was taken, and the cause submitted to the learned judge of the circuit court for decision, who, upon mature consideration, was of opinion that the complainants had failed to prove the allegations of their bill. A decree was therefore entered dismissing the bill, and from that decree this appeal has been taken.

The record shows that in the year 1890 Jethro H. Rhodes, the father or grandfather of all the parties to this suit except the female complainant, Susan P. Rhodes, who is his widow, was a man 81 years of age, who, notwithstanding his years, was in good health, possessed of all his faculties, not easily influenced, and of exceedingly strong mind and great native strength. His attorney says that he could not read or write intelligently, but that he was a man of strong mind and very sound judgment In business matters, and was considered by everybody as being a very good, moral, and upright man; saying further: "My opinion of his condition In that respect was that he was a man of more than average strength, intellect, and will power, and, if anything, a little inclined to have his own way about things, regardless of the persuasions of other people." It further appears that his circumstances were comfortable, and he was respected as a man of integrity and honesty. His large family of children and grandchildren were well regarded and respected in their several spheres. The defendants J. E. and J. P. Rhodes were his only sons, living with their respective families as his nearest neighbors, one within 175 yards, and the other within less than half a mile, of his residence. It is further shown that, a day or two before the deeds in question were executed, these two sons learned that their father had secured a license to marry Susan P. Spivey, one of the complainants, a woman of unsavory reputation, who was the mother oftwo bastard children. The announcement of his proposed marriage to a woman of this character naturally caused his sons great concern and mortification. They feared that she and her associates would be most unpleasant neighbors for their respective families. Under these circumstances, J. E. and J. P. Rhodes consulted with their brother-in-law, Irving Jenkins, who it plainly appears is the instigator of this litigation, and the three determined to, and did, go together and request the ministers in the neighborhood not to perform the ceremony, and then went to the home of their father and made an earnest effort to persuade him to give up what they regarded as a most unfortunate alliance. They sought to impress upon him "that all of his children were leading fair and honorable lives and trying to make the best of themselves, " and "that it would be a reproach and disgrace upon the family"...