Montgomery v. Clark

• Citation: 46 S.W. 466
• Parties: MONTGOMERY et al. v. CLARK et al.
• Decision Date: 22 January 1898
• Court: Supreme Court of Tennessee

46 S.W. 466

MONTGOMERY et al. v. CLARK et al.

Court of Chancery Appeals of Tennessee.

January 22, 1898.

Appeal from chancery court, Jackson county; T. J. Fisher, Chancellor.

Suit by J. S. Montgomery and others against A. N. Clark and others to set aside a conveyance. Bill dismissed, and complainants appeal. Affirmed.

Butler & Montgomery, for appellants. Haile & Johnson and John J. Gore, for appellees.

NEIL, J.

The bill in this case was filed by J. S. Montgomery, as administrator of the estate of Charlotta Wilson, and by E. D. Gillock and W. S. Wilson, as creditors of her estate, against her heirs at law, A. N. Clark, B. D. Clark, and Phillip Clark, and also against James Wolf and the said A. N. Clark, as vendees or donees of certain land formerly belonging to the decedent, and against S. G. Gaines and H. A. Crabtree, as creditors. The bill charges and the proof shows that Charlotta Wilson died on the 27th day of July, 1896, leaving the above-mentioned A. N., B. D., and Phillip Clark as her only heirs at law, and that complainant Montgomery duly qualified as her administrator, and suggested the insolvency of the estate in the county court of Jackson county, where the decedent died, and where Montgomery was appointed administrator, and also that the personal assets are insufficient to pay the costs of the administration. It is charged that the decedent was indebted to H. A. Crabtree in the sum of five dollars, and he files an answer admitting the fact or charge. The bill also charges that the intestate was indebted to S. G. Gaines in the sum of $15, and he files an answer, admitting that he had held such a note, but saying that he had transferred it to one Cephus Gaines. The principal controversy, however, arises over the following charges in the bill: That the decedent was indebted to complainant E. D. Gillock in the sum of $250 for medical services, and to W. S. Wilson in the sum of $125 for services as care taker and nurse; that on the 31st of March, 1896, the defendants James Wolf and A. N. Clark had fraudulently procured from the decedent a conveyance of all of her real estate, the conveyance being made to James Wolf, but intended to inure to the benefit of A. N. Clark; that this conveyance was procured by the undue influence of A. N. Clark over the decedent, who was his grandmother, taking advantage of her weakness of mind, it being charged that she was 80 years old, and that her mind was so weak that she was incapable of attending to any important business; that, in any event, the conveyance was voluntary, and therefore void as to creditors.

There is a great deal of conflicting proof in the record, and we have examined it all with care, and have reached the following result as to the charges of fraud and undue influence: Mrs. Wilson was 80 years old, and quite feeble in body, at the time she executed the deed in controversy, but her mind was clear and fairly strong. She understood fully the nature of the act, and was thoroughly convinced that it was the best thing to be done under the circumstances. She had reared the defendant A. N. Clark, her grandson, from his infancy, and had also had the care of her other grandchildren for a time; and one of them, B. D. Clark, had had charge of her place, and managed it for her, but had moved away a short time before the transaction that gave rise to the present litigation. She was left alone with A. N. Clark. His wife had died, and shortly thereafter he had married again, his second wife being the daughter of the defendant James Wolf. It appears that Mr. Wolf was a very capable and intelligent man, but that A. N. Clark was not. Mrs. Wilson seemed to be aware of both of these facts. She thought that it would be well if A. N. Clark could move close to his father-in-law, so that he might be assisted and guided by him. She was also disturbed over the expense incurred by the too frequent visits of some of A. N. Clark's relatives, who were close by. She said they were eating them out of "house and home." She had meditated selling for some time. She could perhaps have sold to some persons entirely for cash, and have received as much as she obtained in the sale she afterwards made to James Wolf. But she desired that the property should go to the benefit of A. N. Clark. In fact, he had some time before this purchased the expectancy of his two brothers therein. He was regarded as necessarily the owner after the death of his grandmother, but she desired to arrange matters as she thought more to his interest. She feared, if it should be converted into money, her grandson would squander it. Accordingly, to accomplish the desired result, she agreed with James Wolf that she would convey the land to him at $650, $400 of which was to be paid by the deed of James Wolf to A. N. Clark, conveying a portion of his home tract on Indian Creek, in Jackson county, and $225 was to be paid by Mr. Wolf to A. N. Clark from time to time as he should need it, and $25 was to be paid to Mrs. Wilson herself. For this latter sum she took Mr. Wolf's note. She thought that it was probable at the time she sold her property that she might go to Texas to see her grandson Phillip Clark. This was the use she expected to make of the $25. She said, if she did not go, it could be paid to her as she called for it: also, if she should not go to Texas, she would go and live with A. N. Clark. So, she made the deed to James Wolf, and he made the deed to the land on Indian Creek to A. N. Clark. No note was taken for the $225. She trusted that matter to the judgment of James Wolf, and to the interest of A. N. Clark. During the progress of the transaction, she discussed the trade intelligently with Mr. Wolf and with R. V. Brooks, a very intelligent man, as shown by his deposition, who wrote the deed. She inquired as to whether there were any incumbrances upon the Indian Creek land, and answered similar inquiries as to her land. She also inquired of Mr. Brooks as to the value of the Indian Creek land. In addition to this, before the trade was consummated, A. N. Clark went to look at the land, and expressed himself as satisfied. The proof shows that the Indian Creek land was fairly worth $400, and that $650 was fair value for Mrs. Wilson's land. It also appears that a considerable part of the $25 was paid to Mrs. Wilson, but it does not appear whether all was paid. It also appears that more than $100 of the $225 was paid to A. N. Clark by James Wolf, pursuant to his agreement, but it does not appear whether all has been paid. We find from the testimony that Mrs. Wilson had sufficient intelligence to enter into the above-mentioned transaction with James Wolf and A. N. Clark, and that she was not induced to do so by any undue influence exercised upon her by A. N. Clark or others. We further find that the conveyance of the Indian Creek land through James Wolf to A. N. Clark operated as a voluntary settlement upon him by Mrs. Wilson,...