Knadler v. Stelzer

• Citation: 19 S.W.2d 1054
• Decision Date: 30 July 1929
• Docket Number: No. 27575.,27575.
• Parties: WILLIAM E. KNADLER, Administrator of Estate of GOTTLIEB KNADLER, v. MARY STELZER, Appellant.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

19 S.W.2d 1054

WILLIAM E. KNADLER, Administrator of Estate of GOTTLIEB KNADLER, v. MARY STELZER, Appellant.

No. 27575.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division One.

July 30, 1929.

Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court. — Hon. Sam Wilcox, Judge.

REVERSED.

Strop & Silverman for appellant.

(1) Cancellation of a contract is the exertion of an extraordinary power and ought not to be exercised except in a clear case. Cohron v. Polk, 252 Mo. 281; Jackson v. Wood, 88 Mo. 76; Bryan v. Hitchcock, 43 Mo. 527. (2) The contract was intended as a final disposition of deceased's property, and his capacity and independence of action are to be measured by the same rule as in the execution of a will. Hamlett v. McMillin, 223 S.W. 1074; Hughes v. Renshaw, 282 S.W. 1020; Curtis v. Alexander, 257 S.W. 437. (3) Appellant and the members of her family who saw deceased daily had the most favorable opportunities for observing and knowing deceased's mental condition and their testimony as to his mental condition and capacity is entitled to great weight. Holton v. Cochran, 208 Mo. 314; Jones v. Thomas, 218 Mo. 508; Vining v. Ramage, 3 S.W. (2d) 721. (4) The attorney who prepared and superintended the execution of the contract, the physician who attended him daily, and the nurse who constantly waited upon him, were eminently qualified to inform the court as to deceased's condition of mind and body and their testimony is most potent evidence. Canty v. Halpin, 242 S.W. 96; Kleinlein v. Krauss, 209 S.W. 936. (5) No confidential relationship was shown either between defendant, her husband, or any member of her family on the one side and deceased on the other. (a) The rendition by appellant of the services mentioned in evidence to deceased did not create such relation. Van Raalte v. Graff, 253 S.W. 224; Stanfield v. Hennegar, 259 Mo. 50; Bonsal v. Randall, 192 Mo. 531; Goodman v. Griffith, 238 Mo. 718; Huffman v. Huffman, 217 Mo. 192; Bartlett v. White, 272 S.W. 954; Forbes v. Winslow, 270 S.W. 331. (b) The assistance given deceased in his business transactions by appellant's husband, being only such as was necessary because of deceased's blindness and being rendered only at deceased's direction, and where the evidence shows, as here, that deceased managed his own affairs, except where his absence of sight prevented, and remained the dominant mind, does not create the relation. Spurr v. Spurr, 226 S.W. 39; Goodman v. Griffith, 238 Mo. 706; Turner v. Butler, 253 Mo. 202; Hughes v. Renshaw, 282 S.W. 1020. (c) But even if a confidential relationship were established, as between appellant's husband and Knadler, such fact would be immaterial because Christian Stelzer was not a party to the contract and did not participate in its procurement or execution. Such confidential relationship, if existing, raised no presumption of undue influence in this case. (d) The evidence does not create even a semblance of confidential relationship between deceased and appellant's children. (6) If any burden rested upon appellant to rebut an inference of undue influence that obligation was fully met. Cases supra. (7) Where there are only collateral heirs there is no inclination on the part of the courts to look sourly on the preference of one collateral heir over another. Curtis v. Alexander, 257 S.W. 432.

John S. Boyer and John Muster for respondent.

(1) Appellant and her abettors stood in a fiduciary relation to Gottlieb Knadler, and the burden of proof was upon her to show by the most cogent proof that at the time of the execution of the contract he was competent, free from undue influence, that no advantage was taken of him and that the contract was in all respects fair and just. Jones v. Belsche, 238 Mo. 524; Jones v. Thomas, 218 Mo. 508; Ryan v. Ryan, 174 Mo. 279; Innis v. Burnham, 159 Mo. 494; Martin v. Baker, 135 Mo. 495; Kirschner v. Kirschner, 113 Mo. 290; Morris v. Morris, 4 S.W. (2d) 459; Watt v. Loving, 240 S.W. 122; Kuehn v. Ritter, 233 S.W. 8; Cook v. Higgins, 290 Mo. 402; Wendling v. Bowden, 252 Mo. 647; Ray v. Walker, 293 Mo. 447; Mowry v. Norman, 223 Mo. 463; Mowry v. Norman, 204 Mo. 173; 2 Pomeroy Eq. Jur. (4 Ed.) sec. 956, p. 2040. (2) Direct or positive testimony showing the exercise of undue influence is unnecessary, but it is sufficient if it is shown by or can be inferred from the facts and circumstances in evidence. Morris v. Morris, 4 S.W. (2d) 462; Fowler v. Fowler, 2 S.W. (2d) 710; Mowry v. Norman, 204 Mo. 193; Ray v. Walker, 293 Mo. 469. (3) A higher degree of mentality is required to make a contract than to make a will, and the measure of capacity on the part of a testator is not the test for capacity to make a contract. Jones v. Belsche, 238 Mo. 539; Jones v. Thomas, 218 Mo. 538; Innis v. Burnham, 159 Mo. 517; Martin v. Baker, 135 Mo. 503; Watt v. Loving, 240 S.W. 124. (4) The contract on its face bears the impress of fraud. The exertion of undue influence will be inferred and pronounced from the very nature of this contract and from the unreasonable and unfair advantage secured by it. Jones v. Belsche, 238 Mo. 540. (5) Inadequate consideration is a sufficient ground of fraud in itself if the situation calls for relief. Mangold v. Bacon, 237 Mo. 496. (6) The undue influence of a third person is as effective to avoid a contract as the undue influence of the beneficiary herself. Curtis v. Alexander, 257 S.W. 437; Gott v. Dennis. 296 Mo. 66; Wing v. Havelick, 253 Mo. 502; Dingman v. Romine, 141 Mo. 456; Miller v. Simonds, 72 Mo. 669. (7) Where a confidential relation exists and the grantee takes advantage, fraud is presumed. Cornett v. Cornett, 248 Mo. 184; Jones v. Belsche, 238 Mo. 524; Ryan v. Ryan, 174 Mo. 279; Dingman v. Romine, 141 Mo. 466; Martin v. Baker, 135 Mo. 495. (8) The courts have intentionally refused to define fraud, but it is the delight of equity to search for and find it. Howard v. Scott, 225 Mo. 685. (9) A contract containing recitals unnecessary to it and designed to make it appear that it was done at the earnest request and desire of the maker, and executed under circumstances to give it the appearance of fairness, in itself, arouses suspicion. Egger v. Egger, 225 Mo. 116; Mowry v. Norman, 204 Mo. 173. (10) That a conspiracy did exist between appellant and her abettors may be shown by circumstantial evidence. Hart v. Hicks, 129 Mo. 99; Dictrich v. Brewing & Ice Co., 315 Mo. 507.

RAGLAND, J.

Gottlich Knadler died in Buchanan County on the 27th day of July, 1924, at the age of eighty-three years. He had been blind for thirty-five or forty years, and during all of that time had made his home with his half brother, Christian Stelzer, and the latter's wife, Mary Stelzer — the defendant in this case. A little more than thirty days before his death he transferred to defendant notes and securities amounting to approximately $15,000, being all of the property that he possessed. He left surviving him as his heirs at law a half brother, said Christian Stelzer; a sister of the half blood, Catherine Springer; and nephews and nieces, children of David Knadler, a deceased brother of the full blood. At the instance of these latter, an administrator of his estate was appointed for the purpose of instituting this suit to set aside the transfer or gift of his property to defendant. Catherine Springer, being of the opinion that the gift by her brother of his property to the one in whose home he had lived so many years of his life was the thing naturally to have been expected of him declined to participate in any of the proceedings looking to such a contest.

A somewhat fuller statement of the antecedent relations of the parties is necessary for a proper understanding of the questions raised with respect to the transaction in question. Gottlieb Knadler, called by his relatives and friends Caleb, never married; he made his home with his mother until her death, and thereafter with his brother Christian Stelzer. In 1875 he and Stelzer, while both were still living with their mother, purchased jointly 240 acres of land in the neighborhood of their mother's farm. Soon afterward they divided the land, each receiving 120 acres, the part having all the improvements going to Stelzer. Presently Stelzer married defendant, and they, at his mother's request, came and made their home with her and Caleb. All of them then lived together as one family until the mother's death, which occurred nine years later. At that time Caleb was given his choice by Stelzer and David Knadler, who owned and lived on a farm nearby, as to which of them he would thereafter make his home with; he chose to live with Stelzer. Stelzer remained on his mother's farm for a year after her death: thereafter he moved with his family, including Caleb, to his own farm. They resided there until Caleb's death, July 27, 1924, and Stelzer's on August 11th, following: during the intervening years Stelzer and his wife reared a family of eight children.

As a member of Christian Stelzer's family Caleb Knadler received all the attentions and personal ministrations that dependence resulting from blindness was calculated to call forth. He sat beside Mr. Stelzer at meal time and was the first one served: Mrs. Stelzer laundered and mended his clothes and looked after his personal wants as though he were one of her children. He had an eager mind, which was constantly demanding information as to both local happenings and general events; in response to this need, Mrs. Stelzer talked to him hours at a time and read to him from newspapers and magazines, as did her children later on.

The children speaking to him or about him in the family called him Caleb, and he, following their manner of addressing their mother and father, called them "mama" and "papa." The record is silent as to any suggestion that there was ever a break, or even a coldness, in the cordial relations existing between Caleb and the other members of Christian Stelzer's family.

Caleb Knadler, notwithstanding that he was...