King v. King

• Decision Date: 15 February 1916
• Docket Number: No. 1515.,1515.
• Citation: 182 S.W. 1047
• Parties: KING v. KING et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

182 S.W. 1047

KING v. KING et al.

No. 1515.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

February 15, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dallas County; C. H. Skinker, Judge.

Suit by Jonathan King, Jr., against Jonathan King, Sr., and another. From a judgment for the defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

John S. Haymes and O. H. Scott, both of Buffalo, for appellant. John W. Miller and W. C. Hawkins, both of Buffalo, for respondents.

FARRINGTON, J.

This is a bill in equity brought by the plaintiff to restrain a sale by the sheriff of Dallas county acting as trustee under a deed of trust who had advertised the lands of plaintiff to sell under said deed of trust, and further asking that a deed of release made by defendant Jonathan King, Sr., be given effect, and that the court satisfy and release and remove said deed of trust as a cloud on plaintiff's title. The petition also avers that in December, 1908, plaintiff executed nine promissory notes for $100 each payable to the defendant Jonathan King, Sr., due one year each after the date of said notes, and that the deed of trust above mentioned was given to secure their payment; that in 1911 the plaintiff and defendant Jonathan King, Sr., entered into an agreement whereby said notes were to be satisfied and fully paid; and that on December 13, 1911, a written instrument was executed whereby Jonathan King, Sr., undertook to and did satisfy and release said deed of trust; but that the same has not been formally satisfied of record. The answer of Jonathan King, Sr., set up the making of said notes by the plaintiff, but denied that he entered into an agreement whereby they were satisfied, and averred that on December 13, 1911, the plaintiff by false and fraudulent representations induced him to sign a paper which defendant then thought was a receipt for interest due on the notes, and that at the time the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor, induced to become so by the plaintiff in order to enable plaintiff to induce the defendant to sign what now purports to be the deed of release to the lands described in plaintiff's petition. He further avers that, at the time of the execution of the purported deed of release, Ada Taylor, his daughter and the sister of the plaintiff, was the owner of said notes, he (Jonathan King, Sr.) having delivered the possession of the same to her for a valuable consideration, to wit, her having taken care of him for the past several years and her promise to take care of him during the remainder of his lifetime. He prays the court, because of the fraud and deception practiced on him by the plaintiff, to cancel the deed of release purporting to have been executed, and asks that the temporary injunction issued be dissolved, and for all proper relief. The separate answer of Ada Taylor set up the making of the notes and deed of trust; denies any release was entered into by and between Jonathan King, Sr., and Jonathan King, Jr.; avers that at the time of the execution of the purported deed of release she was the owner of said notes and in possession of the same; and her prayer is that the court cancel the said deed of release and that the temporary injunction be dissolved.

The evidence introduced by the plaintiff tended to sustain the allegations of his petition. The evidence offered by the defendants tended to prove that the allegations in their answers are true, first, that the deed of release was procured by deception and fraud and by the plaintiff getting his father intoxicated and incapable of knowing what he was doing,...