Kimmell v. Tipton
Decision Date | 31 May 1940 |
Docket Number | No. 2025.,2025. |
Parties | KIMMELL et al. v. TIPTON et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Ninety-First District, Eastland County; Geo. L. Davenport, Judge.
Suit by Carrie Ella Tipton and husband against Fannie J. Kimmell and others to set aside a trust deed and the appointment of a substitute trustee and to recover rents and damages from defendant Fannie J. Kimmell. From a judgment for the plaintiff, the minor defendants appeal.
Affirmed in part and reversed and judgment directed in part.
Jack W. Frost, of Eastland, for appellants.
Blanton & Blanton, of Albany, by Thomas L. Blanton, Sr., for appellees.
Plaintiffs, Carrie Ella Tipton, joined pro forma by her husband, A. P. Tipton, by their third amended original petition, filed March 15, 1939, in lieu of their petitions theretofore filed in causes 16,779, 17,066, and 17,303, which causes had been consolidated under number 17,303, complained of Fannie J. Kimmell and her husband, Sam Kimmell, Josephine Tipton Latson and her husband, J. H. Latson, Jr., and the Tiptons' minor children, Chesley, Hervey, Elbert and Leonard Tipton. Plaintiffs alleged that prior to the 12th day of January, 1931, Carrie Ella Tipton owned a certain section of land in Eastland County; that when Mrs. Tipton was a child she had convulsions; that she had pneumonia three times, and was sickly, and continued to be in bad health after her marriage; that she was troubled and apprehensive about a prospective serious operation; "that she then was greatly worried and was not possessed of sufficient will-power to resist and refuse to comply with the wishes and demands made upon her by her father, and on January 12, 1931, upon the demand of her father, she was compelled through their importunities, and her inability to resist their demands, to sign a trust deed which said C. J. O'Connor had prepared, conveying to her said father, John E. Chesley, as trustee, for her minor children, defendants herein, the aforesaid section of land * * * in trust for the use and benefit of her said minor children."
That there was no consideration for said deed; that plaintiffs were "informed that the purpose of said deed was to protect plaintiffs' said section of land * * * from being subjected to the payment of the notes they had given for the land near Scranton"; that the acknowledgment of Mrs. Tipton was not taken separately and apart from her husband, as stated in the acknowledgment to said deed; that John E. Chesley took possession of said land under said deed on January 12, 1931, and managed and controlled it until he died on January 25, 1932; that on September 13, 1932, an attempt was made to appoint Mrs. Kimmell (then Mrs. Pulley) as substitute trustee to take charge of said land; that John I. Chesley, Vida O'Connor, Fannie J. Pulley and C. J. O'Connor signed a document dated the 13th day of September, 1932, purporting to appoint said Fannie J. Pulley substitute trustee; that said instrument was acknowledged by said parties and recorded in the deed records of Eastland County; that said appointment of Mrs. Kimmell as substitute trustee was void and should be set aside and annulled because (1) said parties had no authority in law to appoint a substitute trustee; (2) the trust deed of January 12, 1931 (wherein Mrs. Tipton conveyed said property in trust to her father) was void and should be set aside and annulled because "at the time it was signed, the said Carrie Ella Tipton on January 12, 1931, did not possess sufficient mental capacity under the law to execute a lawful deed of conveyance, and she then was incapacitated from executing a lawful deed of conveyance; that said fact was then known to the parties who attempted to appoint Mrs. Kimmell as substitute trustee"; (3) that said trust deed was void because Mrs. Tipton's acknowledgment was not taken separately and apart from her husband; (4) that said trust deed, if valid, did not authorize the appointment of a substitute trustee under the circumstances that existed at the time of the appointment of Mrs. Kimmell; (5) that no authority was given to C. J. O'Connor to participate in the appointment of a substitute trustee; (6) that Mrs. Kimmell did not have the right to vote to appoint herself substitute trustee; (7) that Mrs. Kimmell did not have the right to approve her own bond.
Plaintiffs further alleged that on March 29, 1933, Mrs. Tipton's brother, John I. Chesley, made an affidavit charging her with being of unsound mind; that she was arrested, tried and, on April 25, 1933, adjudged to be of unsound mind, and a guardian appointed for her person and estate; that on April 6, 1936 Mrs. Tipton was adjudged to be of sound mind.
Plaintiffs further alleged that if said trust deed and the appointment of Mrs. Kimmell as substitute trustee both should be held to be valid, then Mrs. Kimmell should be removed (a) because she had forfeited her rights to act as such trustee, by failing to make a report of the condition of said estate on plaintiffs' request, and (b) because she was not a suitable person to act as such trustee, being unfriendly to plaintiffs and their minor children; that the trust deed was void and should be set aside and annulled because on January 12, 1931, "when same was signed, the said Carrie Ella Tipton was of unsound mind and did not possess sufficient mental capacity to legally execute a deed of conveyance."
Plaintiffs further sought to recover from Mrs. Kimmell $1,200, rents and revenues Mrs. Kimmell was alleged to have collected from said estate, and to have withheld from plaintiffs, and $7,000 damages for failure to lease said section of land for oil and gas development.
The pertinent provisions of the trust deed from Mrs. Tipton to her father are as follows:
The instrument thereafter provided that upon demand of any person interested in the welfare of the children ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Slay v. Mary Couts Burnett Trust
...ours.) The above, and other testimony of like import, came from Simon in response to questions by his own counsel. See Kimmell v. Tipton, Tex.Civ.App., 142 S.W.2d 421, 429. The books of Slay and Simon show the $15,100, received from Sweatt, as cash fees received on September 18th and 29th. ......
-
Moore v. City of Beaumont
...On the interpretation of Article 5529 see Deaton v. Rush, 113 Tex. 176, 252 S.W. 1025, at page 1032, and Kimmell v. Tipton, Tex.Civ.App., 142 S.W.2d 421, 427, at page 431 (Par. 9). Further, this suit was filed in time. This suit was filed on September 26, 1939, which was less than four year......
-
Head's Estate, Matter of
...nature and effect of the act in which the person is engaged. Jackson v. Pillsbury, 380 Ill. 554, 44 N.E.2d 537 (1942); Kimmell v. Tipton, 142 S.W.2d 421 (Tex.Civ.App.1940); Harrison v. City National Bank of Clinton, Iowa, 210 F.Supp. 362 (S.D.Iowa 1962); Turner v. Cole, 116 N.J.Eq. 368, 173......
-
Dallas Railway & Terminal Co. v. Bishop
...been different but his evidence the same as it was, was bound by his evidence, thus concluding the issue against him. Kimmell v. Tipton, Tex.Civ.App., 142 S.W.2d 421, and authorities there Other issues complementary of said issue No. 45 as constituting a ground of defense based upon contrib......