Leslie v. Carter

• Decision Date: 29 February 1912
• Citation: 240 Mo. 552,144 S.W. 797
• Parties: LESLIE v. CARTER et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

144 S.W. 797

240 Mo. 552

LESLIE v. CARTER et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri. Division No. 1.

February 29, 1912.

1. DEEDS (§ 211) — EVIDENCE — MISREPRESENTATION.

In a suit to annul a deed, evidence held to establish that the grantee occupied a confidential relation toward the grantor, and misrepresented material facts relating to the conveyance.

2. CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS (§ 31)— BONA FIDE PURCHASER—EVIDENCE—SUFFICIENCY.

In a suit to annul a deed, evidence held to show that one of the defendants was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

3. EQUITY (§ 67)—LACHES.

Laches is an equitable defense, sometimes allowed, when the period of limitation has not lapsed, on the ground that there has been such a change in conditions that defendant will be put at a disadvantage unless such defense is allowed.

4. CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS (§ 34)— PROCEEDINGS—DEFENSES—LACHES.

Where a brother purchased mining property from his sister, fraudulently misrepresenting that it was not of great value, he cannot sustain the defense of laches by showing that he executed mining leases thereon, and that such lessees might mulct him for damages for the rights of the lessees are not in issue.

5. CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS (§ 34)— PROCEEDINGS—DEFENSES—LACHES.

In a suit to annul a deed, evidence held to show that plaintiff sued promptly on discovering she had been imposed on.

6. CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS (§ 59)— PROCEEDINGS—RELIEF TO DEFENDANT.

In a suit to annul a conveyance of plaintiff's interest in mining property, brought against the grantee and a purchaser from him, who was not a purchaser in good faith and for value, defendants who had acquired the entire title to the property cannot claim compensation for their efforts in securing the improvement of the property by mining lessees, for they were in possession of plaintiff's share by their own wrong.

7. CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS (§ 59)— PROCEEDINGS—RELIEF TO DEFENDANT.

In a suit to annul a deed to land on the ground that it was obtained by fraud, defendant, though obtaining the conveyance by fraud, is entitled to interest on the purchase money paid by him.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jasper County; Hugh Dabbs, Judge.

Suit by Mary E. Leslie against S. E. Carter and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Frank L. Forlow and Geo. Hubbert, for appellants. W. M. Robinson and Thomas Hackney, for respondent.

VALLIANT, J.

This is a suit in equity to annul a deed made by plaintiff conveying her one-fifth interest in 538 acres of land in Jasper county to defendant Carter, on the ground that it was obtained by fraud, and to annul, also, a deed from Carter conveying the same interest to defendant Byrd, on the ground that it was without consideration, and made to further the fraudulent purpose by which defendant Carter obtained the deed from plaintiff. Plaintiff tenders back the purchase money paid her by Carter, and prays an account of rents and profits. Defendant Carter's answer was a general denial. Defendant Byrd's answer was a general denial, and a statement of facts going to show that he was an innocent purchaser for value, and that plaintiff was guilty of laches. The finding and judgment was for the plaintiff on all the issues, and the defendants appealed.

The 538 acres of land were owned by Washington G. Carter, who died in 1874, leaving his widow and six children his heirs, four sons, George, S. E., A. G., and William, and two daughters, Mary, the plaintiff, and Laura. George died some time in the 80's, never married. The widow died in 1887. The five surviving children, three sons and two daughters, thus inherited the land. The plaintiff was four years old when her father died. She lived with her mother and the family of children on the farm until after the mother's death. In 1890 plaintiff went to live with her married sister Laura Miller in the then territory, now state of Washington, where she lived for a few years, and was married and went with her husband William N. Leslie, to Alaska, where she has ever since resided, and where she was residing when the transactions complained of in her petition occurred. After the plaintiff left Missouri, and went to Washington and thence to Alaska, her brother A. G. Carter, until his death which occurred in 1903, acted as her agent, collected her share of the rents, and sent the same to her. After his death the defendant S. E. Carter performed that office for her. The land lies in the lead and zinc mining district of Jasper county. There had been some mills and mining on this land during the above period, but the mining had not been a success. Still there were prospects and the market value of the land fluctuated as those prospects brightened or faded. November 15, 1905, defendant Carter wrote the plaintiff offering her $5,000 for her one-fifth interest in the land. The contents of the letter will be more particularly referred to again herein. December 9, 1905, plaintiff wrote a letter of that date, accepting the offer, and sending a deed as he had requested to a bank in Webb City to be delivered to him. The contents of that letter will also be referred to again. That is the deed which plaintiff seeks to annul in this suit. Plaintiff avers, and Carter denies, that he was her confidential agent in whom she placed implicit trust. She avers, and he denies, that he deceived her as to the conditions existing in regard to the mining status and the mining prospects which influenced the value of the land; that the interest which she was thus induced to part with for $5,000 was worth at least $50,000. As already said, after the death of A. G. Carter, the defendant S. E. Carter looked after the plaintiff's interests collected her rents and sent them to her.

Further bearing on the issue of the confidential relation, the testimony for plaintiff was to the following effect: After the plaintiff left the home in which she had been reared, and went to Washington and thence to Alaska, she had been absent from the state, except a short visit in 1895, for 15 years, and during that time she knew nothing of the property or its condition except through letters from her two brothers A. G. Carter while he lived and S. E. Carter, the defendant, afterwards. The letters from defendant Carter to plaintiff and from her to him are of the most affectionate character. The writers seem, though so long separated, to have never lost interest in each other, or to have ceased their love as brother and sister. The letters, though not models of literature, are models of fraternal love, and the business features that necessarily come into the letters, when they relate to business, show only a desire to promote the welfare of each other. The letters are altogether too long and numerous to insert all of them in this opinion, but such is our estimate of them. A. G. Carter looked after the plaintiff's business affairs while he lived, and we are not concerned with that, but it is with the affairs of the plaintiff while the defendant S. E. Carter looked after them that are in question.

In 1890 the plaintiff, her brother William and sister Laura, executed a mining lease for 15 years to their brothers A. G. and S. E. Carter, and under that lease the two latter made several subleases, but the operations had not proven very successful. October 20, 1905, defendant Carter wrote plaintiff, sending her a deed to be executed by her extending the lease for 10 years, which she promptly executed and returned. In his letter of November 15, 1905, he thanked her for her prompt action in executing and returning the extended lease, and took occasion to say that he did not have at that time as much hope of selling the land as he had had, because the company that thought of buying had a heavy task in the matter of drainage, and the company that was there before said they had lost $150,000, and he said he believed those figures were about right. The heirs had for several years been trying to sell the land; the negotiations being conducted by A. G. and S. E. Carter while the former lived and by the latter after the death of the former. In 1903 an option had been granted to one Hunter to purchase the whole tract for $81,000, but that failed. In November, 1904, S. E. Carter conducted negotiations which led to an option for the sale of the land at a price which was to realize to each heir $10,760. The deeds were to be made to Charles A. Byrd, through whom for convenience the title was to pass if the sale should be consummated. Accordingly, on November 30, 1904, Carter wrote the plaintiff, inclosing the draft of a deed to be executed for her and her husband conveying her one-fifth of the land. The deed was to be deposited in a bank in Webb City in escrow to be delivered when the price was paid. In the letter he said: "I have sent a similar deed to all of the children. I have what I think is a good chance to dispose of the property, and as George's interest will have to be procured through court it will take some time, and then the people who are figuring on taking it expect to form a stock company and sell stock." The George referred to was the minor son of A. G. Carter, deceased. Plaintiff in her letter replying began: "My dear Brother: I received your letter together with deed for land. We signed deed and returned it as soon as possible. I hope everything goes all-right this time. It has been such a long time since I heard from any of you folks I was so glad to hear even through a business way." The letter proceeds in a very sisterly tone, and closes with "best love to you all." That option also failed of consummation.

On the question of fraudulent concealment and misrepresentations, there was a great deal of testimony relating chiefly to the condition of the property in the way of mining and mining prospects. On the part of the plaintiff there was testimony tending to show that in the fall of 1905, at the...