Muller v. Buyck

• Decision Date: 11 July 1892
• Citation: Muller v. Buyck, 12 Mont. 354, 30 P. 386 (Mont. 1892)
• Parties: MULLER v. BUYCK.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

30 P. 386

12 Mont. 354

MULLER v. BUYCK.

Supreme Court of Montana

July 11, 1892

Appeal from district court, Lewis and Clarke county; WILLIAM H HUNT, Judge.

Action by Anna Muller against Sully Buyck to compel the transfer to plaintiff of certain property alleged to be held by defendant in trust for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The other facts fully appear in the following statement by HARWOOD, J.:

The appeal is from the judgment entered by the trial court, and the assignments of error are predicated on the pleadings and the findings which constitute part of the judgment roll. By this action, plaintiff seeks to compel the transfer of the legal title and possession of several parcels of real estate described in the complaint, situate in Lewis and Clarke county, this state, together with certain furniture situate in houses standing on several of said lots, from defendant to himself; and also an accounting, and recovery of rents and profits alleged to have been derived from said property by defendant, while he held the same as trustee for the use and benefit of plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that she is the owner and entitled to the possession of said property, all of which is specifically described in her complaint; and that although "the title to said property is in the name of defendant, it was purchased with the money of this plaintiff and that defendant at all times since the same was conveyed to him held the same solely as trustee for plaintiff;" that plaintiff and defendant for a period of about nine years prior to November 21, 1889, lived together in the cities of New York, Chicago, and Helena, and during all of that time defendant was kept and supported by plaintiff, and had no means of his own, nor any source of revenue, and was engaged in no employment, except for a short period, when he kept a saloon in the city of Chicago, out of which he realized nothing; that for a number of the last of said nine years during which defendant and plaintiff lived together they were engaged to be married, and that during all of said time except about two months immediately prior to November 21 1889, the relations of plaintiff and defendant were intimate and confidential, and that for several years immediately before November, 1889, plaintiff confidently expected to marry defendant; that out of plaintiff's money she had purchased the property described, and permitted the title thereto to be put in the name of the defendant, who held and agreed to hold the same solely as trustee for plaintiff; that in October, 1889, plaintiff delivered to defendant $1,800 to keep for plaintiff, and that defendant still retains the same; that in the fall of 1889 defendant assaulted and beat plaintiff, and was about to abandon her, and that plaintiff became greatly distressed by reason thereof, and the further reason that the title to her said property stood in the name of defendant, and that by reason thereof she began to drink excessively of intoxicating liquors; that while plaintiff was intoxicated, and after repeated solicitations of defendant's attorney so to do, plaintiff being without counsel and ignorant of her legal rights, fearing that defendant would leave her without restoring her property or any of it to her, and fearing herself in danger of extreme maltreatment by defendant, plaintiff executed a quitclaim deed and bill of sale conveying to defendant all of her said real and personal property for the sum of $3,000, paid her by defendant; that plaintiff is unfamiliar with the English language, and by reason thereof she did not know the nature and contents of said instruments, and that by reason of the aforesaid facts plaintiff fraudulently procured the execution thereof; that the value of said real estate at the time of executing said quitclaim deed conveying the same to defendant was $15,000, and that the value of the rents and profits thereof since November 21, 1889, together with the moneys of plaintiff in defendant's hands, is greatly in excess of $3,000 paid by defendant to plaintiff at the time of executing said conveyances; that defendant executed two certain mortgages on said real estate to secure the sums of $2,500 and $400, respectively, which are now outstanding liens thereon to the amount of said sums. Upon the allegations of her complaint, plaintiff prayed for judgment canceling said quitclaim deed and bill of sale, and that defendant be compelled to account to plaintiff for said property and the rents and profits thereof as trustee, holding the same in trust for the use and benefit of plaintiff, and that the court compel the execution of said trust by decreeing the transfer of the legal title of said property to plaintiff, and for judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendant for such sum as may be found due her on an accounting. Defendant first demurred to the complaint on the alleged ground that the same failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was overruled, and defendant thereupon answered said complaint, denying plaintiff's alleged ownership, right, title, or interest in said property, or any part thereof; and denied that said property, or any portion thereof, was purchased with moneys belonging to plaintiff; or that defendant took and held title thereof, or to any portion thereof, in trust for plaintiff; and specifically denied all the allegations of the complaint, except that he held the legal title and possession to said property, and that he and plaintiff had lived together in intimate and confidential relations for about nine years prior to November, 1889; but he denied that he was without means of support or source of revenue during said period, and denied that he was supported during that period by plaintiff. On the contrary, he alleged that he supported plaintiff. Defendant admitted that plaintiff had accepted from him $3,000, and in consideration thereof executed said quitclaim deed and bill of sale conveying said property to defendant; but he denied specifically all the facts and circumstances alleged by plaintiff relating to the alleged fraudulent procurement of the execution of said instruments. Defendant also alleged that all of said property was purchased by him with his own means, and for his own use and enjoyment; that he was the sole owner thereof; and that plaintiff has not, nor ever had, any interest, right, or title whatever therein; that during all of said period of nine years plaintiff knew that defendant was a married man, and had no cause to expect that defendant would marry her, and denied that he ever promised to marry plaintiff, or ever gave her any reason to expect that he would marry her. He denied that plaintiff ever put into his hands $1,800, or any sum, to keep for plaintiff; or that he had in his keeping or detains any sum of money belonging to plaintiff, or in which plaintiff has any interest. Denied that he ever maltreated or struck plaintiff, or that through any such reason or influence plaintiff began to use intoxicating liquor to excess, but admitted that plaintiff had for a long time been addicted to the use of such liquor to excess. Having alleged that he bought said property with his own funds, and for his sole use and benefit, defendant alleged that on or about the 14th of November, 1889, plaintiff set up a false and fraudulent claim to said property, asserting that she owned an interest therein, and that, "although said claim was without any merit whatever, this defendant, in order to avoid trouble with plaintiff, and to be relieved of the annoyance of her persistent and offensive demands, offered to pay her any reasonable sum if she would cease to molest him, and would peaceably and quietly relinquish and execute to him a quitclaim deed of all said real estate, and a bill of sale of all of said personal property;" that plaintiff agreed to so relinquish her claims on said property, and cease to annoy and molest defendant, if he would pay plaintiff the sum of $3,000, which sum, for the considerations aforesaid, and not because plaintiff had any just claim on or interest in said property, or any part thereof, defendant agreed to pay to plaintiff; and that he did pay her said sum on her execution and delivery of said deed and bill of sale, which defendant alleges she executed freely and voluntarily, and with full understanding of the contents, nature, and effect thereof.

Upon the trial of the cause at the close of the introduction of evidence on behalf of each party, the plaintiff, with leave of court, amended her complaint to conform to the proof, as follows: "That the relations of the plaintiff and defendant at all times when they lived together were intimate and confidential; that during all such time the defendant exerted an undue influence and command over plaintiff; that all moneys which he at any time had during such time, or at any time since meeting plaintiff, and the time of the executing of the instruments hereinafter referred to, were the moneys of plaintiff, had and held by him as her agent or trustee, and that out of such moneys in his hands as her agent or trustee all of the property described in the complaint was purchased and paid for; and that the title to the same was taken in the name of the defendant, by reason of the intimate and confidential relations existing between the parties hereto, and the undue influence and command by defendant exercised over plaintiff, he intending fraudulently to deprive her thereof, and of all the funds so in his hands as her agent or trustee." Amendment was likewise made to the answer, denying the allegations of said amendment to the complaint.

The trial court made elaborate findings of fact, and stated its conclusions of law in the case, which are as...