Mcvey v. Phillips

• Decision Date: 07 March 1924
• Docket Number: 23528
• Citation: 259 S.W. 1065
• Parties: McVEY v. PHILLIPS et al
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

259 S.W. 1065

McVEY v. PHILLIPS et al

No. 23528

Supreme Court of Missouri, First Division

March 7, 1924

Frank Hollingsworth, of Mexico, Mo., for appellant.

Don C Carter, of Sturgeon, and Arthur Bruton, of Centralia, for respondents.

OPINION

JAMES T. BLAIR, J.

Appellant instituted this suit to partition 80 acres of Audrain county land, in which she claims a one-tenth interest as heir of her brother George W. Phillips. Appellant and respondents James T. and John W. Phillips and Alta Mae Lewis are brothers and sister, and respondent Ella Phillips is their mother. Respondents Hulen and Mitchell are respectively, trustee and beneficiary in deeds of trust on the land in suit. Respondent Ella Phillips filed an answer in which facts are averred which form the basis of a prayer for a reformation of the deed whereby the title to the land was apparently vested in Ella and George W. Phillips as tenants in common. The relief sought and granted was the reformation of the deed mentioned so as to show the vestiture of title to the land in the grantees therein as joint tenants instead of tenants in common. No question is raised as to the sufficiency of the pleading to raise the issue as to the reformation of the deed.

It appears that formerly Ella Phillips and her now deceased husband held the title to a farm near Sturgeon by the entireties; that all their children except George W. Phillips had left home some years before; that Ella Phillips and her husband decided to and did convey this farm to George W. Phillips upon the 'consideration * * * that the grantee, his heirs and legal representatives shall care for and provide a home for both grantors as long as they shall live,' with a right in them to reclaim title in case of his failure to perform his agreement. During the time of high prices there came an opportunity to sell this farm at a large advance. George W. had about $ 500 actually invested in this land. The rest both he and his mother seem to have regarded as hers. They appear to have put no emphasis on the deed to George as entitling him to more or less interest in the money received from the sale of the Sturgeon farm. In fact, the question of apportioning title according to the respective investments did not influence George or his mother, so far as the record shows. They formed a plan which they thought would care for every contingency. They sought and found another farm, that involved in this suit, and arranged to buy it. Respondent Ella had or claimed $ 8,000 of the money which went into this tract. George W. put in $ 500. The remainder is represented by trust deeds, aggregating $ 2,300. Between themselves respondent Ella and George W. agreed that they would take the title to the farm they were about to purchase in the names of both in such fashion that the survivor of the two would take the whole title -- a joint tenancy. Though they did not seem to know this term, they made it clear that this was what they desired.

They were about ready to close the purchase of the land in suit at the time they were closing the sale of the Sturgeon farm. They discussed the matter with the attorney who was aiding in closing the Strugeon farm sale, and told him their purpose to create a joint tenancy in the land here involved, and sought his aid to effectuate it. He told them they could have that done at Centralia, where they were to complete the purchase. This suited them, and they went to Centralia and went to see the scrivener, Miss Rena Jennings, who subsequently drew the deed now sought to be reformed. Miss Jennings testified that respondent and George W. Phillips came to her to draw the deed and 'I asked them who they wanted the deed made to, and they said to make it to both of them so that in the event of either's death the survivor would get all the estate.' She told them she did not know how to draw such a deed and referred them to an attorney, who seems to have been the only member of his profession in that city. Mrs. Phillips and her son left the notary's office and were absent over half an hour. It is shown that the attorney mentioned was not in Centralia that day. Nevertheless, Mrs. Phillips and George W., on their return, told the scrivener to 'make it out to both of them as that would fulfill what they wanted done.' She then drew the deed in suit. She assumed that the grantees had seen the attorney to whom she referred them. These grantees and Vanvacter, who sold them the land in suit, all carried accounts in the Bank of Centralia of which R. B. Price is cashier. The financing of the transaction was done through this bank. In closing the purchase, Price made a $ 700 loan on one-half of the land. In this connection he inquired of Mrs. Phillips and George as to the way they were taking the title. They told him 'they had had the deed drawn to them jointly so that in the event of the death of one the survivor would own the land.' Subsequently George W. Phillips died.

Upon this evidence the trial court entered its decree reforming the deed so that it shows a conveyance to the grantees as joint tenants.

Appellant contends that the judgment should be reversed because (1) joint tenancies are contrary to the spirit of American jurisprudence; (2) the relief sought relates to a collateral matter; (3) respondent was guilty of negligence which bars her claim; (4) equity will not grant relief where the mistake set up is 'a pure matter of law as to the legal effect of the contract entered into;' (5) the evidence is...