Liddell v. Lee

Decision Date13 March 1942
Docket NumberNo. 37718.,37718.
Citation159 S.W.2d 769
PartiesLIDDELL et ux. v. LEE.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pemiscot County; Louis H. Schult, Judge.

Action to cancel deed, reinvest title in plaintiffs, and for accounting by Will Liddell and wife against George M. Lee wherein defendant filed a cross-bill. From an adverse decree, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Hal H. McHaney, of Kennett, for appellant.

Smith & Tomlinson and Elbert L. Ford, all of Kennett, for respondents.

BOHLING, Commissioner.

Will Liddell and Nellie Liddell, husband and wife, instituted this action against George M. Lee to cancel their certain warranty deed dated January 19, 1938, conveying to said Lee 38 acres in the SE¼ of the SW¼, Sec. 16, Twp. 16, R. 10 E., Dunklin county, Missouri, on the theory defendant, through fraud and deception, caused plaintiffs to believe said instrument was a deed of trust; to reinvest the title thereto in them; for an accounting, and for general relief. Defendant's answer was a general denial, coupled with a cross-bill to quiet the title in defendant. The parties do not question the correctness of the court's findings with respect to the account. The contest here is over the charges of fraud; the defendant appealing from a decree canceling said deed, decreeing a lien of $678.84 in favor of defendant against said real estate and directing plaintiffs to pay said $678.84, plus interest, into court.

Mr. Lee operates the Lee Gin Company, Inc., is engaged in other enterprises, and owns or has an interest in considerable real estate. Plaintiffs are negroes. Will Liddell cannot read or write. His wife can read and write "just a little." She would sign her husband's name (he executing a mark) and her name to the notes and deeds of trust mentioned infra.

The Liddells purchased the land in 1934, paying $40 therefor. It was then uncleared. By January, 1938, they had cleared 25 acres and erected a "shot gun" house, the lumber costing $175. The Liddells commenced to transact business with Mr. Lee in 1935. Lee "furnished" (financed) the Liddells, anticipating payment upon the marketing of the cotton crop, that is, during the given year and at the instance of the Liddells, Lee would advance moneys for necessities or furnish the same and charge their account. As the result thereof, the Liddells executed promissory notes to and secured the same by deeds of trust on the land involved in favor of Lee on the dates and in increasing amounts as follows: May 17, 1935, for $100, payable October 1, 1935. March 4, 1936, for $261.05, payable October 1, 1936. February 18, 1937, for $442.42, payable October 1, 1937.

In the fall of 1937 Liddell made arrangements with Harry Brown, who also operated a gin, to take care of his indebtedness to Lee, et cetera, Brown insisting upon Liddell securing an itemized statement thereof from Lee. About Christmas, 1937, Liddell told Lee he wanted to pay and Lee asked him who was furnishing the money. Upon being informed that Brown would pay and wanted an itemized statement, Lee told him "he didn't want Mr. Brown to pay off anything for him"; that he, Lee, didn't need any money and for Liddell to go home and go to work. Liddell testified that although he several times requested an itemized statement to show Brown, it was never furnished; and that, throughout the several years and the many transactions, he had never received an itemized statement. He testified he was never told what price he was getting for his cotton. He exhibited a slip showing the figure 497.11, from which 32.17 had been deducted, leaving 461.94, which he testified he had been given to show Harry Brown and which was not satisfactory. He also testified that A. M. Hilton, Lee's agent, told him he would have to sign a deed of trust to go ahead, and whenever he did he could get a mule and carry on; that they never told him he would have to give a deed in consideration for his indebtedness and the 1938 financing; and that his relations with Lee had always been good and he had always trusted him.

Defendant's version of the negotiations was that Liddell owed him approximately $461 around Christmas, 1937; that Liddell was informed he would not be carried longer unless he deeded the land to Lee; that about the first of January, 1938, Liddell informed Lee he could not get any one to "furnish" him, could not pay, and he was ready to quit; that Lee told Liddell he would "furnish" Liddell in 1938 for a deed to the land; that in January, 1938, Liddell owed approximately $482, and Liddell agreed to convey the land, the consideration to be the $482 and whatever "furnish" Liddell had to have in 1938. Liddell was not to repay the 1938 "furnish". Defendant Lee testified, among other things, that he remembered Liddell seeing him about Christmas, 1937, and stating that Brown wanted to take over his account; that he told him "there wasn't any use of Harry Brown paying the $461, that I would treat him all right, and that I didn't need Harry Brown's money"; that I told him "a month later that I couldn't carry him unless he gave me a deed to the land." A. M. Hilton testified that about October 1, 1937, he gave Liddell notice Lee would not carry him any longer and that Lee wanted his money.

January 19, 1938, Liddell and his wife went to Lee's office in Blytheville, Arkansas. Lee had drafted a deed to the land. Liddell went into the office. His wife remained outside. Liddell testified Mr. Lee said he would take them to Mabel Hogan's (bookkeeper and stenographer for the Lee Gin Company), who was home ill, "to sign a deed of trust"; that the three went to Miss Hogan's; that Mr. Lee had the papers and turned them over to Miss Hogan; that witness told them he could not write; that the paper was not read to him and he was not told it was a warranty deed; that he thought it was a deed of trust, was trusting them; that Miss Hogan said sign here and showed his wife where to sign. Nellie Liddell testified that she accompanied her husband to Miss Hogan's; that Mr. Lee said he wanted them to sign a deed of trust; that Mr. Lee talked to Miss Hogan and told witness it was a deed of trust; that he said: "Let's hurry up"; that Miss Hogan brought the paper to a table and said: "Sign right here, this deed of trust"; that the paper was folded so the only place she could see was where she was to sign it; that Miss Hogan said: "Sign his name first"; that Mr. Lee said they were going to sign a deed of trust for the 1938 "furnish"; that it was not read to them and she did not read it; that Mr. Lee took them back to town and remarked: "I guess I had better pay the taxes" and her husband said: "I can pay them next year"; Mr. Lee said: "No, the best time is now."

Defendant's version of the signing of the instrument, which was a warranty deed conveying the real estate, differed materially. His witnesses denied the statements concerning a deed of trust attributed to them and that the instrument was folded when presented to Nellie Liddell for signature. Mr. Lee testified Miss Hogan asked the Liddells if they knew they were signing a warranty deed to their property and that both said they did. Miss Hogan testified she asked Nellie Liddell if she knew she was signing a warranty deed and she replied she did. The Liddells did not request that the deed be read to them and it was not read. The deed, as abstracted, recites a consideration of $792.40, bears the signatures of Will Liddell, by mark, and Nellie Liddell, was acknowledged before Mabel Hogan and purports...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Trieseler v. Helmbacher
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 2, 1943
    ... ... are other relations not falling in either of those specified ... classes that are in fact fiduciary, ... It is in each case ... a question of fact. The law regards the real, rather than the ... nominal, condition." See also Liddell et ux. v. Lee ... (Mo.), 159 S.W. 2d 769, and Selle v. Wrigley, ... 233 Mo.App. 43, 116 S.W. 2d 217. The origin of the confidence ... and the source of the influence are immaterial. Judd v ... Walker, 215 Mo. 312, 114 S.W. 979; Liddell et ux. v ... Lee, supra ... ...
  • Edwards v. Sittner
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • September 13, 1948
    ...extends to cases in which there is a confidence reposed on one side and a resulting domination and influence on the other. Liddell v. Lee, Mo.Sup., 159 S.W.2d 769, and cases Taking the first amended petition as a whole, does it show the necessary fiduciary relationship? We think not. The wr......
  • Liddell v. Lee
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 13, 1942
  • Service Life Ins. Co. of Fort Worth v. Davis
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 5, 1971
    ...the existence of a confidential relationship, the origin of the confidence and the source of the influence are immaterial. Liddell v. Lee, Mo., 159 S.W.2d 769, 772(3); Trieseler v. Helmbacher, l.c. 1036(8, 9); 89 C.J.S. Trusts § 151, p. 1056. A confidential relationship is not proved merely......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT