Jones v. Mcgruder

• Decision Date: 22 January 1891
• Citation: 12 S.E. 792,87 Va. 360
• Parties: Jones et al. v. McGruder et al.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

12 S.E. 792

87 Va. 360

Jones et al.

v.McGruder et al.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Jan. 22, 1891.

Cancellation of Deed —Fraud and Undue Influence—Evidence.

In a suit by the heirs of the grantor to set aside deeds on the ground of fraud and undue influence, it appeared that the grantor was an habitual drunkard, and died shortly after execution of the deeds from softening of the brain. His family physician, landlord, and a number of neighbors and intimate acquaintances testified that, on account of his condition, he was mentally incapable of transacting business. Defendants' witnesses were many of them relatives and friends, living at a distance, who merely expressed their opinion, without giving reasons for it. Those benefited by the deeds were the grantor's most trusted friends, and advised and assisted him in executing them; one of them was his own cousin, who had the most unbounded influence over him. There was no consideration for the deeds, and their existence was for a long time concealed from the grantor's family and their counsel. Held, that the deeds should be set aside.

Appeal from the chancery court of Richmond.

Page & Carter and Pegram & Stringfellow, for appellants.

M. M. Gilliam, Thos. S. Martin, and Saml. D. Davies, for appelees.

Fauntleroy, J. The petition of Jenkins M. Jones, Mary E. Brock, M. Johnson Brock, her husband, Nannie M. Marshall, Ella W. Jones, John K. Jones, and Morgan T. Jones, the last three being infants, and suing by their mother and next friend, Sarah E. Jones, complains of a decree of the chancery court of the city of Richmond, entered on the 16th day of November, 1889, in a suit in chancery therein pending, in which the said petitioners are complainants, against William M. McGruder, John T. Jones, Jerry W. Jones, of Henrico county, M. M. Gilliam and John K. Branch, trustees, and John P. Branch, defendants. The record discloses the following case:

On the—— day of April, 1887, the petitioners and their mother, Sarah E. Jones, filed a bill In the chancery court of the city of Richmond, against William M. McGruder, John T. Jones, and Jerry W. Jones, to set aside the deeds hereinafter referred to; and the defendants having demurred to the bill, on the ground that Mrs. Sarah E. Jones was not a proper party to the suit, the court sustained the demurrer, and dismissed the bill, with leave to petitioners to bring another suit without joining their mother. Thereupon, on the 5th day of August, 1887, petitioners, as children and heirs at law of John E. Jones, deceased, filed their bill, alleging that their said father died intestate, February 18, 1887, in Henrico county, Va. That Thomas N. Page qualified as administrator of his estate on the—— day of April, 1887, in due form. That their father, John E. Jones, and their mother, Sarah E. Jones, lived unhappily together; and the latter, in 1884, instituted her suit for divorce and alimony, which was dismissed in 1885. That John E. Jones was then possessed of some real estate in Henrico county, Va., in his own right, and of a very large estate in right of his wife, in which he had a life-interest only. That attempts had been made to secure a division of this property for the separate enjoyment of John E. Jones and Sarah E., his wife, which failed. That John E. Jones was, and for a long time had been, an inordinately and constantly intemperate man, of impaired mind and willpower, and greatly and irresistibly under the influence of his first cousin, John T. Jones, and one William M. McGruder. That these two men approached Sarah E. Jones, as agents for John E. Jones, to procure a division of the property aforesaid, between John E.Jones and Sarah E. Jones, which they said they could effect, and that, after long and frequent negotiations, such division was made by deeds of November 24, 1886. That during all the negotiations leading up to, and consummated by, the said deeds, neither Sarah E.Jones nor her counsel ever saw John E.Jones; and it was a matter of discussion as to how, or to whom, these deeds should be made, so as to free the property allotted to John E. Jones and Sarah E. Jones, respectively, in severalty, from their respective marital rights. That it was finally decided to convey Mrs. Jones' allotment or portion to a trustee, and so, also, to convey John E. Jones' part to some third party for him. That when this agreement was reached the names of the intermediary grantees had not been mentioned, but finally Thomas N. Carter was selected for Mrs. Jones, and it was proposed to convey John E. Jones' part to John T. Jones, who was his near relative and his closest friend, and who had been active, persistent, and assiduous in bringing about this settlement; when Mrs. Jones refused, peremptorily, to enter into any agreement or arrangement which would put any part of her maiden property in the name or control of John T. Jones; whereupon the conveyance was finally made to William M. McGruder, and Jerry W. Jones, a young brother of John T. Jones, and then living with him.

The bill further alleges that when the deed to McGruder and Jerry W. Jones was presented for inspection there was no consideration expressed in the deed, but at the last instant the blank was filled at $4,000 in hand paid, which Mrs. Jones and her counsel believed to be a merely nominal consideration, and evidence of a secret trust, as all the parties knew that the property conveyed, that in Richmond alone, was worth from ten to twelve thousand dollars. The bill further alleges that Jerry W. Jones and William M. McGruder now claim that they had previously purchased from John E. Jones on October 15, 1886, all his interest in all property owned by him in his own right, and in all inherited by his wife, for $4,000, represented by their four notes, without security, of $1,000 each, payable at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after date; and that thef had, on that 13th day of October, 1886, obtained from him a contract to convey the same whenever he should be called upon to do so; and that, when the division was made between John E. Jones and his wife, they required the deed to be made to them of the part allotted to John E. Jones in fee-simple. The bill charges (and the uncontradicted evidence proves) that the existence of this contract of October 13, 1886, which is in the handwriting of John T. Jones, was carefully concealed from Mrs. Sarah E. Jones and her counsel, Thomas N. Page and T. N. Carter, during all the negotiations and at the execution of the deeds of November 24, 1886; and that if Mrs. Jones, or her counsel, had known thereof, she never would have consented to an agreement which gave to McGruder and Jerry W. Jones, in fee, more than $10,000 worth of her maiden property, for the sum of $4,000, nominally paid to her husband, but of which he had never received one cent. It is further alleged in the bill that, although John T. Jones and William M. McGruder and Jerry W. Jones all knew of the transaction of October 13, 1886, and of the qualification of Thomas N.Page as administrator of John E. Jones, deceased, they carefully and successfully concealed from Mrs. Jones and her counsel, and from the said administrator, and from the complainants, the fact of the existence of the contract of October 13th, or that these notes had ever been given, and that they, or either of them, held them, and held them indorsed by John E. Jones, and so, in themselves, a receipt in full, and the fact that they were unpaid; and that these facts, and the existence of the 13th of October contract, itself, were only revealed in the spring of 1887, after the litigation to set aside the fraud had been actually begun. The bill charges that the contract of October 13, 1886, which was signed by John E. Jones alone, and not by the other parties to it, was a fraud on John E. Jones, whose mind and will were too much impaired and enfeebled, by long-continued, incessant, and excessive drunkenness, to understand and resist the transaction, which was grossly imposed upon him by John T. Jones, William M. McGruder, and Jerry W. Jones, who had unbounded and undue influence over him, and who dominated and imposed upon him, for their own sinister ends, both in the obtaining of the said pretended contract of 13th of October, 1886, and the execution of the deed of November 24, 1886, by which they had themselves named as grantees in and beneficiaries of said deed, instead of John E. Jones, by virtue of a pretended purchase; and that the deed of November 24, 1886, was a fraud perpetrated by the said John T. Jones, William M. McGruder, and Jerry W. Jones, upon the said John E. Jones, an habitual, inveterate, and helpless drunkard.

The bill charges that there was never any real purchase of the property conveyed by the deed of November 24, 1886, from John E. Jones by Jerry W. Jones and William M. McGruder; and that it was conveyed to William M. McGruder and Jerry W. Jones without considerat-tion, and for some purpose by which John E. Jones believed, and was made to believe, that it still belonged to him, while they held the legal title, so as to bar the marital rights of his wife. But the bill expressly charges that, if the real object and effect of that deed of November 24, 1886, is to convey the property to the nominal vendees in that deed, it was procured by concealment and fraud, and for no consideration; and that, therefore, the said vendees are mere trustees for John E.Jones living, and for his children and heirs at law, he being dead-. The bill charges that William M. McGruder and John T. Jones (who, it is alleged, is the actual purchaser with McGruder) were both insolvent. That Jerry W. Jones was John T. Jones' tool, used by him to consummate the fraud, and was worth but little if anything; and that as soon as the deed of 24th of November, 1886, was given, a portion of the property was incumbered by a trust-deed to secure $7,-800 borrowed; and that of this sum a large balance is in the hands of M. M. Gilliam, ...