Palmer v. Palmer

Decision Date19 December 1921
Docket NumberNo. 22113.,22113.
Citation238 S.W. 423
PartiesPALMER v. PALMER et al.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Saline County; Samuel Davis, Judge.

Suit by William N. Palmer against William Notley Palmer and others. From decree for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

This is a bill in equity instituted in the circuit court of Saline county by the plaintiff and appellant against the defendants and respondents, the object of which was to set aside and cancel a certain deed of conveyance made and executed by the former to the latter, conveying to them, 222 acres of land, situate in Saline county, Mo. The trial court found the issues for the defendants and rendered a decree for them accordingly, and, after moving unsuccessfully for a new trial, the plaintiff in due time and proper form appealed the cause to this court.

The facts of the case are practically undisputed, and counsel for the respective `parties have admirably complied to rules of this court regarding the statement of the case, and for that reason we have been spared much of the duties of investigating the record regarding the facts. We adopt the statement of counsel for respondents because it accentuates certain facts more clearly regarding the vital issues of the case, than does that of appellant's, yet their statement is most excellent. The facts are as follows:

This suit was filed in the circuit court of Saline county, Mo., on the 12th day of December, 1918 a is a suit by W. N. Palmer, the appellant, to set aside the deed to 222 acres of land in Saline county, Mo., made by appellant and his wife, Cynthia M., Palmer, and one Nancy R. Thomas to respondents William Notley Palmer and Nancy Palmer, now Nancy Palmer Callaway, of date April 15, 1897, upon an expressed consideration therein of $5 and love and affection, and filed by appellant for record on the 13th day of June, 1898, in the recorder's office of Saline county, Mo., and recorded in such office at Deed Book 89, at page 508 therein. An actual manual delivery of said deed was later made to respondents by appellants, in 1914. The respondents are grandchildren of the appellant, William N. Palmer, and, at the time said deed was made and recorded, were infants residing with the appellant and his wife, Cynthia M. Palmer, their grandmother, and by whom they were raised and educated.

The appellant acquired his title to said laud from the above-mentioned Nancy R. Thomas by deed, found in the record at page 130; such deed to him was in consideration of the sum of one dollar, and placed the fee-simple title, subject to certain reservations and charges against the land in favor of the said Nancy R. Thomas during her life-time. The said Nancy R. Thomas was an aunt of the appellant, and the land in question seems to have been in the Palmer family from the grant of the same by the United States government, and it was desired by her to be so kept (although no such restriction appears in the deed to him). Both the said Nancy R. Thomas and the said Cynthia M. Palmer, the wife of the appellant, at the time said deed was made by the grandmother of the respondents herein, were dead at the time of the institution of this suit, and appellant had remarried. The respondent Nancy Palmer has since the making of said deed, intermarried with her codefendant, Samuel Melt. Callaway, Jr., and is known in this record as Nancy Palmer Callaway.

In 1897, at the time of the making of the deed sought now to be set aside, the appellant was a man of large business affairs and experience, a man of quick perception and understanding and of strong intelligence, with knowledge of trading and all kinds of business. He was advised at the time by his attorney to make a will, rather than a deed to the respondents, but he said he wished it all settled in his lifetime, and accordingly made the deed and procured his aunt, the said Nancy R.. Thomas, to join him in the execution thereof, so that there would be no trouble between her and the children in the event of his death. By the deed in question, the property was conveyed to the respondents, subject to the reservations, limitations, and conditions in the deed from the said Nancy R. Thomas to the said William N. Palmer, and the estate for life therein was reserved to the said William N. Palmer and his wife, Cynthia, together with the right to use and enjoy said real estate during their natural Jives. Said deed did not contain any power of revocation or reserve any such right to either of the grantors named therein a passed the present interest in and to all of said lands in fee simple to the respondents, subject alone to the limitations and charges reserved in favor of Nancy R. Thomas during her life (set out in the deed under which the grantor, William N. Palmer, held), and subject also to the life estates reserved by it to the said William N. Palmer and Cynthia M. Palmer.

On the 1st day of January, 1917, the appellant, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Blackiston v. Russell, 29983.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 20, 1931
    ...or other cause. [Chambers v. Chambers, 227 Mo. l.c. 287; Wells v. Kuhn, 221 S.W. 19; Melvin v. Hoffman, 235 S.W. 107; Palmer v. Palmer, 238 S.W. 423.] The decree of the trial court is therefore affirmed. Ferguson and Sturgis, CC., PER CURIAM: The foregoing opinion by HYDE, C., is adopted as......
  • Blackiston v. Russell
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 20, 1931
    ...influence or other cause. [Chambers v. Chambers, 227 Mo. l. c. 287; Wells v. Kuhn, 221 S.W. 19; Melvin v. Hoffman, 235 S.W. 107; Palmer v. Palmer, 238 S.W. 423.] decree of the trial court is therefore affirmed. Ferguson and Sturgis, CC., concur. PER CURIAM: -- The foregoing opinion by Hyde,......
  • Wilkerson v. Wann
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1929
    ...222 S.W. 814; Bragg v. Packing Co., 226 S.W. 1013; Nichols v. Wimer, 230 S.W. 344; Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Frumson, 236 S.W. 316; Palmer v. Palmer, 238 S.W. 423. A deed fully executed, even though it be a deed of gift, if valid at all, cannot be revoked unless adequate reason for such revocati......
  • Schneider v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • January 12, 1948
    ...meaning, and no resulting trust arises in favor of the appellant because the conveyance was voluntary and without consideration. Palmer v. Palmer, 238 S.W. 423. (2) The executed, acknowledged by appellant and his wife conveying to respondents a present interest in the property, it is beyond......
  • 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