Leahey v. Witte
Decision Date | 18 June 1894 |
Citation | 27 S.W. 402,123 Mo. 207 |
Parties | Leahey v. Witte, Appellant |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon. James E. Withrow Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
F. & Ed. L. Gottschalk for appellant.
(1) The petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. 1 Perry on Trusts, secs. 134, 215; 2 Story's Equity Juris., sec. 1201a; Botsford v Burr, 2 Johns. Ch. 406; Sherrill v. Crosby, 14 Johns. 358; Minot v. Mitchell, 30 Ind. 228; 3 Reed on Stat. of Frauds, sec. 929; Taylor v. Boardman, 24 Mich. 287; Hall v. Hall, 107 Mo. 101. (2) The mere breach of an agreement to hold for the execution debtor was not in itself a fraud. Fox v. Heffner, 1 W. & S. 372; Hames v. O'Conner, 10 Watts, 313; McNew v. Booth, 42 Mo. 190. (3) The finding was against the law and the evidence and should have been for the defendant. (4) Plaintiff's evidence does not come up to the requirements of the law. It must be clear and unequivocal and not merely preponderating. Johnson v. Quarles, 46 Mo. 423; Forrester v. Scoville, 51 Mo. 268; Shaw v. Shaw, 86 Mo. 595; Rogers v. Rogers, 87 Mo. 257; Taylor v. Von Schraeder, 107 Mo. 207; Gillispie v. Stone, 70 Mo. 505. (5) The agreement relied on is void under the statute of frauds. Baier v. Berberich, 6 Mo.App. 537; 77 Mo. 435; Hammond v. Cadwallader, 29 Mo. 167.
J. P. Vastine for respondent.
(1) Appellant is a trustee. McNew v. Booth, 42 Mo. 189; Grumley v. Webb, 44 Mo. 444. Respondent's petition is sustained by Baier v. Berberich, 6 Mo.App. 537 and 77 Mo. 413. (2) Fraud will not be tolerated under the guise of friendship. McDonald v. Fithian, 6 Ill. 269; Kehoe v. Taylor, 31 Mo.App. 588. (3) Respondent's evidence was clear, cogent and unequivocal. Rogers v. Rogers, 87 Mo. 257; Shaw v. Shaw, 86 Mo. 595; Forrester v. Scoville, 51 Mo. 268. (4) Agreement rests on parol no defense. Hall v. Hall, 107 Mo. 101; Turner v. Johnson, 95 Mo. 437; O'Fallon v. Clopton, 89 Mo. 284; Rogers v. Rogers, 87 Mo. 257; Damschroeder v. Thias, 51 Mo. 100; Rutherford v. Williams, 50 Mo. 18. (5) If confidence is reposed and is abused, equity will grant relief. Posten v. Balch, 69 Mo. 115; Street v. Goss, 62 Mo. 226; Turner v. Adams, 46 Mo. 95; Turner v. Adams, 44 Mo. 535; Keiser v. Gammon, 95 Mo. 217. (6) Decree is sustained by Baier v. Berberich, 6 Mo.App. 537 and 77 Mo. 413.
OPINION
In Banc
On August 11, 1888, Bridget Leahey died seized of the house and lot in controversy, situated in the city of St Louis, which was subject to a deed of trust made by her to one Chas. Kuhn as trustee to secure a note for $ 8,000, with six interest notes for $ 240 each, payable at intervals of six months, and all dated April 5, 1888. This property she gave to her daughter, the plaintiff, by will.
At the time of her mother's demise plaintiff was a minor, and did not come of age until October 28, 1888. The notes secured by the deed of trust becoming due, and default being made in the payment thereof, the property was advertised for sale on the third day of June, 1889, at which sale the defendant became the purchaser thereof, at the price of $ 8,452, and received a deed therefor from the trustee.
The petition alleges that the property was bought by the defendant for $ 7,918, less than its value; that at divers times prior to the sale, and while the property was advertised for sale by the trustee, plaintiff solicited defendant to buy the property for her, and protect her interest therein, which defendant repeatedly promised to do; that she believed, trusted and relied on his promises; that said defendant had had business dealings with her mother, and was related to her, and plaintiff therefore the more readily relied on his promises; and made no further effort to cause the property to sell for its value at the sale, or to find someone else to protect her interest, and was therefore lulled into repose and nonaction under the belief that defendant would do as he had promised and buy in the property for her.
That plaintiff subsequently requested defendant to deed the property to her, subject to the deed of trust for $ 8,000, placed upon it by defendant the day after the sale, offering to pay him for his services, which he promised to do; but afterward refused, unless she paid him $ 3,000.
Plaintiff further avers that she is young and inexperienced in business; but that if she had not been satisfied with defendant's promises, she would have made diligent efforts to cause the property to sell for more than it did; and that it would have sold for near $ 8,000 more than defendant paid for it, and prays that Witte be held to be a trustee for her use, etc.
The answer was a general denial and a plea of the statute of frauds.
Upon hearing the evidence, the circuit court of the city of St. Louis found for the plaintiff, and the defendant brings the case here on appeal.
The circuit court ordered a reference and an account to be taken between the parties. The referee found the plaintiff's equity of redemption in the property to be $ 2,431.07, on which the decree of the circuit court was based.
The points insisted on by the appellant are: First. The petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Second. The finding is against the law and the evidence, and should have been for defendant. Third. The statute of frauds.
I. Is the petition sufficient? The plaintiff in her petition does not in words charge the defendant with fraud, deception and false representation, with intent to cheat and defraud plaintiff, but allegations are made which, if true, would doubtless show an intention to cheat and defraud on his part, and which would create a constructive trust.
Section 218 [4 Ed.], Bispham's Principles of Equity, says: See, also, Ib. sec. 91.
The petition alleges that plaintiff, having an interest in the mortgaged premises, at her solicitation defendant agreed to buy it in for her; that he consented to do so before the sale, and so told various witnesses; that he bought it at a great sacrifice; that she relied on his promises; that after the purchase he denied her rights and cast her off. Is not this a sufficient statement of facts in the petition which, if true, would show fraud and deceit, although fraud, in so many words, is not charged?
In the case of Slowey v. McMurray, 27 Mo. at page 118, Judge Scott says: Estill v. Miller, 3 Bibb 177.
In Rose v. Bates, 12 Mo. 30, the court says:
The allegations of the petition are fully sustained by the evidence, and leave no room for reasonable doubt in my mind. Rogers v. Rogers, 87 Mo. 257; Johnson v Quarles, 46 Mo. 423; Forrester v. Scoville, 51 Mo. 268; Ringo v. Richardson, 53 Mo. 385; Kennedy v. Kennedy, 57 Mo. 73...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Parker v. Blakeley
... ... Brightwell v. McAfee, 249 Mo. 562, 155 S.W. 820; ... Phillips v. Jackson, 240 Mo. l. c. 335, 144 S.W ... 112, and cases cited; Witte v. Storm, 236 Mo. 470, 139 S.W ... 384.]" If that be recognized as a correct statement of ... applicable law then in any case where the lands are ... title is wrongfully consummated." [Pomeroy's Equity ... Jurisprudence (4 Ed.), sec. 1056, p. 2412; Leahey v ... Witte, 123 Mo. 207, 220, 27 S.W. 402, 406.] We have also ... heretofore noted that the evidence does not show the ... existence of any ... ...
-
Phillips v. Jackson
...538. Heil v. Heil, 184 Mo. 665; Rose v. Bates, 12 Mo. 30; Hammond v. Cadwallader, 29 Mo. 166; Baier v. Berberich, 6 Mo.App. 540; Leahy v. Witte, 123 Mo. 207; Richardson v. Champion, 143 Mo. 545; Phillips Hardenburg, 181 Mo. 474; Berlin v. Bieler, 96 Mo. 91; Mulock v. Mulock, 156 Mo. 435; Sl......
-
Hillman v. Allen
...13 Mo. 151; Bobb v. Bobb, 89 Mo. 412; Price v. Kane, 112 Mo. 419; Weiss v. Heitkamp, 127 Mo. 23; Rogers v. Ramey, 137 Mo. 598; Lehey v. Witt, 123 Mo. 207. The having made a warranty deed to the defendant for the real estate in controversy, he could not, if living -- and his heirs can not, r......
-
Kerber v. Rowe
...and stated. [Parker et al. v. Blakeley, 338 Mo. 1189, 93 S.W.2d 981; Ferguson v. Robinson, 258 Mo. 113, 167 S.W. 447; Leahey v. Witte, 123 Mo. 207, 27 S.W. 402.] a criticism of Missouri cases and of certain authors for failure to observe the differences see 2 Bogert, Trusts, sec. 451, pp. 1......