Monroe v. Lyons

• Decision Date: 12 November 1936
• Citation: 98 S.W.2d 544,339 Mo. 515
• Parties: E. N. Monroe, Plaintiff, v. Mary Franklin Lyons, Ira Stockton, W. F. Stockton, C. A. Birney, O. D. Stockton, W. A. Hombs, John Markey, A. S. Montgomery, J. B. Scifers, Administrator of the Estate of Henrietta Branscomb, and O. H. Moberly, Commissioner of Finance in charge of Logan's Bank of Glenwood, by Frank Farrell, Special Deputy Commissioner
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

98 S.W.2d 544

339 Mo. 515

E. N. Monroe, Plaintiff, v. Mary Franklin Lyons, Ira Stockton, W. F. Stockton, C. A. Birney, O. D. Stockton, W. A. Hombs, John Markey, A. S. Montgomery, J. B. Scifers, Administrator of the Estate of Henrietta Branscomb, and O. H. Moberly, Commissioner of Finance in charge of Logan's Bank of Glenwood, by Frank Farrell, Special Deputy Commissioner

Supreme Court of Missouri

November 12, 1936

Appeal from Putnam Circuit Court; Hon. A. G. Knight, Judge.

Affirmed.

York & York for appellants.

(1) Uncertainty in description of property conveyed makes deed void. Ozark Land & Lumber Co. v. Franks, 156 Mo 673; Cass County v. Oldham, 75 Mo. 50; Campbell v. Johnson, 44 Mo. 247; Gatewood v. House, 65 Mo. 663; McCormick v. Parsons, 195 Mo. 91. Existence of patent ambiguity in description of premises renders deed void. Mudd v. Dillon, 166 Mo. 110. (2) Intent of instrument will rule over certain words such as "grant bargain and convey." Waldermeyer v. Loebig, 222 Mo. 551; Stoepler v. Silberberg, 220 Mo. 267; Butcher v. Rogers, 60 Mo. 138; Moore v Harris, 91 Mo. 616. Court will not permit grantor to do what law prevents. Cornwell et al. v. Wulff, 148 Mo. 542. Intention of grantor will be carried out unless to do so would violate positive rule of law. Waldermeyer v. Loebig, 222 Mo. 551. (3) Interest conveyed must be definite and ascertainable from instrument. Axiomatic. (4) Any influence however exercised, which destroys free agency and substitutes will of another is undue. Dingman v. Romine, 141 Mo. 466. Threat to commit suicide held to constitute undue influence. In re Van Houten's Will, 17 Misc. 445, 41 N.Y.S. 250. That threat of suicide may constitute undue influence recognized by Missouri Supreme Court in McFadin v. Catron, 138 Mo. 224. Threat to commit suicide may constitute undue influence. 13 Encyclopaedia of Evidence, sec. A, p. 195, note 15.

Clare Magee for respondent.

(1) The instrument in question has the necessary attributes of a deed of conveyance. 13 Cyc. 524; Wimpey v. Ledford, 177 S.W. 302; Willis v. Robinson, 237 S.W. 1030. (a) It is a deed rather than a testament. 13 Cyc. 522. (b) Description of real estate conveyed is sufficient. 18 C. J. 180. (c) The interest conveyed is definite. (2) The threats alleged in defendants' (appellants') answer do not constitute such duress or undue influence as to avoid the conveyance. 9 R. C. L., pp. 721, 722, 723; Girty v. Standard Oil Co., 37 N.Y.S. 369; 9 R. C. L., pp. 1032-1033; 18 C. J., pp. 234, 236; 82 A. L. R. 956; 4 A. L. R. 862. (3) Defendants are estopped by ratification and limitations from setting up fraud, duress, or other alleged invalidity of the instrument. Branner v. Clabber, 49 S.W.2d 169; Sec. 850, R. S. 1929; Bray v. Haskins, 229 S.W. 1024; 13 Cyc. 391, 392. (4) Respondent is a bona fide purchaser for value and could not be affected by any alleged fraud or duress. 13 Cyc. 591; 9 R. C. L. 724; Crawford v. Aultman & Co., 139 Mo. 262.

OPINION

Frank, J.

Action to partition certain real estate. The judgment below decreed partition as prayed and defendants appealed.

One Thomas Stockton died seized of the land in question and left surviving him his widow, Henrietta Stockton, and the following named children: Mary Franklin Lyons, Ira Stockton, W. F. Stockton and O. D. Stockton. After Thomas Stockton's death his widow and children above named conveyed an undivided one-fifth interest in the estate, both real and personal, to one Charles E. Stockton, subject to the payment of the debts of the deceased, and subject to the rights of the widow. This conveyance reads as follows:

"THIS INDENTURE, made and entered into this July 2nd, 1917, by and between W. F. Stockton and Eva L. Stockton, his wife, O. D. Stockton and Dottie Stockton, his wife, Ira Stockton, a single man, Mary E. Franklin & Chas. E. Franklin, her husband, sole children and Henrietta Stockton, widow of Thomas Stockton, deceased, late of Putnam County, Missouri, parties of the first part, and Charles E. Stockton, party of the second part,

"WITNESSETH, That the parties of the first part for and in consideration of one dollar, love and affection, and the consideration hereinafter mentioned, do by these presents, bargain and sell, and agree that second party shall inherit as an heir of Thomas Stockton, deceased, the same as if he was a child of deceased, and that his interest in the real and personal estate of which said Thomas Stockton died seized and possessed shall be one undivided one-fifth interest, subject to the homestead and dower interest of said Henrietta Stockton, widow, in said personal and real estate, to him, and his heirs and assigns forever.

"The land affected being all the land of which said Thomas Stockton died seized, and same lies in Section thirty-two and thirty-three, in Township Sixty-six (66) Range Sixteen (16) and in Sections four and five, in Township sixty-five (65) Range Sixteen (16), in Putnam County, Missouri, and he the said Charles E. Stockton to have one-fifth interest in same subject to the payments of debts of deceased, and he also to have one-fifth of the personal property, subject to the payment of debts of deceased, and subject to the rights of said widow Henrietta Stockton, in each case. The intention herein being to make said Charles E. Stockton an heir of said Thomas Stockton, deceased, and of said Henrietta Stockton, and to make him share the same as other heirs of deceased. The reason for same is that said Thomas and Henrietta Stockton have raised the said Charles E. Stockton from infancy as a child of their own. (It is understood and agreed that any debts owing by said Charles E. Stockton, either to the estate of deceased or on which said deceased is surety for said Charles E. Stockton are to be deducted from his share in estate, and that should the share of Charles E. Stockton in the personal property not be sufficient to pay same, the balance shall be chargeable to and payable out of his share in the real estate of deceased conveyed to him above. Nothing herein to deprive the widow of her right of election. This is to be binding on ourselves, our heirs and assigns.

"WITNESS the hands of said parties this day. Should the Widow elect to take a child's part, then the interest conveyed would be only a one-sixth interest.

"Mary Franklin

"Henrietta Stockton

"O. D. Stockton

"Dottie Stockton

"Chas. E. Franklin

"W. F. Stockton

"Eva L. Stockton

"Ira Stockton

"And I, Charles E. Stockton, accept the above, and agree that I have no further claims against said estate, other than is conveyed to me in the above, this to be binding upon myself, my heirs and assigns forever.

"WITNESS my hand this July 2nd, 1917.

"Charles E. Stockton."

Said deed was duly acknowledged and recorded. Thereafter Charles E. Stockton executed a deed of trust on the undivided one-fifth interest conveyed to him by said deed, for the purpose of securing the payment of a certain note described in said deed of trust. Default was made in the payment of said note and the deed of trust was foreclosed. E. N. Monroe purchased the interest of Charles E. Stockton at such foreclosure sale and thereafter brought this suit.

Appellants contend that plaintiff, E. N. Monroe, cannot maintain this action because he has no interest in the land sought to be partitioned.

The claim in support of this contention is that the alleged deed executed by the widow and children is void, and hence conveyed no interest in the land to the grantee, Charles E. Stockton. If this be true, then plaintiff, E. N. Monroe, did not acquire any title by purchasing at the foreclosure sale under a deed of trust executed by Charles E. Stockton upon lands in which he had no interest.

The contention made calls for a construction of the deed. The rules governing the construction of deeds are well settled. In Waldermeyer v. Loebig, 222 Mo. 540, 551, 121 S.W. 75, we said:

"Again and again it has been ruled by this court that a deed must be read as a whole, in a word, by its four corners, and that many of the old formulas were no longer invoked by the courts. All rules of construction rest upon the principle that they were designed to ascertain the intention of the grantor and effectuate it unless some positive rule of law would be infringed by so doing."

The cited case quotes approvingly the following:

"Every deed is to be construed according to the intention of the parties, as manifested by the entire instrument, although it may not comport with the language of a particular part of it. Thus a recital or a preamble in a deed may qualify the generality of the words of a covenant or other parts of a deed."

The opinion further quotes from Bean v. Kenmuir, 86 Mo. 666, 671, as follows:

"But rules of interpretation, formerly adhered to with much strictness, have been changed, or modified, or abandoned, when, in their modern applications, they have been found hostile to the end the courts struggle to attain, which is to give effect to the grantor's intention, and to effect which they make it the paramount rule to read the whole instrument, and, if possible, give effect and meaning to all its language."

Appellants contend that the instrument in question is not a deed but is a contract between the grantors and Charles E. Stockton, grantee, by the terms of which the parties sought to make Charles E. Stockton an heir of Thomas Stockton by adoption.

We do not so construe the instrument. While it recites that "the intention herein being to make said Charles Stockton an heir of said Thomas Stockton, deceased, and of said Henrietta Stockton, and to make him share as other heirs of deceased" (italics ours), yet when the instrument is viewed from its four corners, as it must be, we are forced to the...