Reaves v. Pierce

• Decision Date: 02 April 1930
• Docket Number: No. 27710.,27710.
• Parties: REAVES et al. v. PIERCE.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

26 S.W.2d 611

REAVES et al. v. PIERCE.

No. 27710.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

April 2, 1930.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dallas County; C. H. Skinner, Judge.

Suit by Frankie Reaves and others against Clint Pierce. Decree for defendant, and the plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

I. W. Mayfield & Son and L. C. Mayfield, all of Lebanon, for appellants.

John S. Haymes, O. H. Scott, and Levi Engle, all of Buffalo, for respondent.

ELLISON, C.

This is a suit to set aside a deed executed by Hubert Pierce, deceased, a widower, conveying 160 acres of land in Dallas county to his son Clint Pierce. The plaintiffs are the other children and the husband of one of the daughters. The petition charged mental incapacity of the grantor, undue influence, and an unconscionably inadequate consideration. The answer put these allegations at issue and prayed that defendant's title be quieted. The decree below was for the defendant, and the plaintiffs have appealed.

The deed was in form a quitclaim dated October 20, 1925, acknowledged the next day, and filed for record two days thereafter on October 24. The grantor died six weeks later on December 7, in his 69th year. The consideration recited was $1 and the performance of a number of conditions by the grantee, which may be summarized as follows: (1) That the grantee should reside on the farm with his father, and that he and his family should treat the father kindly during the remainder of his life; (2) that the grantee should support the father in a manner suitable to his health and station in life; (3) that the grantee should furnish the father lodging, board, clothing and laundry, medical attention, and the necessary articles for a comfortable living; (4) that the grantee should pay all incumbrances against the property, and all taxes as they became due; (5) that the grantee should put the improvements on the premises in good repair and keep them so; (6) that the grantee should provide a respectable burial for the father and erect a suitable monument at his grave; (7) that the grantee should not sell, mortgage, or incumber the land or permit it to be done "except for taxes before they become due."

It was further provided that a breach of any of the above conditions should work a forfeiture of the conveyance and a reversion of the title to the grantor. The deed was also made subject to an existing deed of trust securing the payment of $780, held by the O'Bannon Banking Company, which the grantee was expressly required to assume.

Nineteen witnesses testified for appellants and some thirty-one for the respondent. Some of the evidence is very contradictory. Like most cases of this character the opinions expressed by the witnesses differ widely as to the mental capacity of the deceased. He was chiefly engaged in farming, though he also bought and sold live stock in the community. He had resided there and owned the land in question for a number of years. The farm was valued at from $5,000 to $7,000, and is stated to have produced an annual rental of from $400 to $500. The respondent lived on the farm as a tenant through the times here involved.

About ten years before his death the deceased married a second time. The union did not prove happy, and subsequently suits for divorce and counter suits, bills, and cross-bills were filed by both parties. Efforts at reconciliation were made and rejected by the wife. This litigation finally resulted in the granting of a decree of divorce to Hubert Pierce in an action instituted by him, at the October, 1925, term of the Dallas county circuit court, it being the same tribunal before which the present case was presented during the next ensuing April, 1926, term. A property settlement was arranged between the parties in connection with the divorce proceeding, and Hubert Pierce mortgaged his farm to the O'Bannon Banking Company for $780 to procure the funds required in carrying out his part of the settlement. This mortgage was the incumbrance which the deed in controversy required the respondent to assume and which it was admitted he did subsequently pay.

Both medical and lay witnesses were introduced to prove the mental capacity of the deceased. Prior to October 23, 1923, he was hale and hearty. On that day he was stricken with a disease which caused a temporary impediment in his speech. Some of his children called Dr. Talbot, a physician who resided at the village of Long Lane, 1½ miles from the farm where the deceased lived — the land in controversy. Others of the children on learning of their father's illness requested Dr. Stewart, a physician at Phillipsburg some 10 miles distant, to visit him. These physicians did not agree in their diagnosis.

Dr. Talbot was called as a witness for respondent. He stated he had treated Hubert Pierce for several years, and that he had been called to visit him on three occasions between October 23, 1923, and the date of his death. He diagnosed his trouble as due to high blood pressure, but said the patient responded to treatment and reported to him that he was "feeling pretty well now." The doctor gave it as his opinion that the deceased was capable of understanding and transacting ordinary business, though conceding his mind might not have been as acute after October, 1923, as it was before.

Dr. Stewart, who testified for appellants, diagnosed the immediate cause of the illness as a blood clot on the brain. When he went to see the deceased on October 23, 1925, he had had no previous professional contact or acquaintance with him. On that occasion Dr. Talbot was there. The patient was sitting in a chair in his home and was very excitable and could not focus his mind. He had a severe pain in his head and was not normal mentally. The doctor told the family the old man ought to fix up his business affairs after he recovered from the attack. The following spring the patient called at his office in Phillipsburg and said, "What do you think of me? I am crazy." Dr. Stewart says he told him he was all right — to encourage him. His real opinion was that he would live from to 2 to 5 years, more likely the former; and that the cerebral attacks would be recurrent with periods of mental repose between. This second time he saw the old gentleman he thought he was better, his mind a little quicker, and his speech clearer. Later he saw him once or twice on the street but did not talk to him. The doctor said worry and vexation would have a tendency to arouse the mental infirmity.

Dr. Benage, of Conway, the other of the two medical witnesses for appellants, only saw old Mr. Pierce four times, between February 25 and April 9, 1925. The deceased on each of these occasions came to his office in Conway sometimes accompanied by his son-in-law Taber Reaves, sometimes alone. He was suffering from nephritis and had a blood pressure of 210. This physician, in response to a question asked by appellants' counsel, said, "Well, it seemed like his mind kind of wandered." The witness further expressed doubt as to whether the deceased's mental condition on these four occasions was such as to make him capable of dealing at arm's length in making trades, or in general business affairs. On cross-examination he stated he knew nothing of his condition in October, 1925, when the deed was executed. On redirect examination he declared that people stricken as the deceased appeared to be sometimes, but rarely, got very much better.

Dr. Plummer, one of the respondent's witnesses, said the deceased came to his office on October 19, 1925, for an examination; that he also saw him on the 2d and 23d of November, 1925; that he found him in poor health, suffering from chronic nephritis (Bright's disease) and high blood pressure, but he added, "I didn't notice anything wrong with his mind at all."

Dr. Meyers, the respondent's other medical witness, said he had examined Hubert Pierce on October 4, 1924, and found him afflicted with nephritis. When asked what the condition of his mind was at that time he answered, "All right, so far as I could tell."

We understand from the testimony of the physicians that the deceased was quite ill when stricken on October 22, 1923; that he was afflicted with chronic nephritis or Bright's disease and subsequently had several acute attacks which required him to go to bed. It appears, however, that he soon recovered from these and went about attending to business affairs in the ordinary way. Admissions to this effect, more or less clear, were elicited from two or three of appellants' witnesses.

The testimony of the appellants, themselves, was the strongest and most pointed adduced on their side of the case. All the children said they knew nothing about the deed until after their father's death. They said after the first acute attack in October, 1923, Hubert Pierce's mind was like that of a child 8 or 10 years old; that he was forgetful and dazed and would burst out in spells of weeping. Two of the daughters, Mrs. Reaves and Mrs. Shaddy, quoted their brother, the respondent, as saying their father was crazy. These two daughters and two of the sons, J. M. Pierce and Don Pierce, stated further that the respondent proposed sending him to the asylum, and said, if they did not do it, the neighbors would.

M. M. Clough, a notary public and justice of the peace residing at Conway, testified that in February, 1925, the respondent and his brother-in-law Taber Reaves came to consult him about taking steps to send the old man to the asylum. The witness quoted the respondent as saying on this occasion his father was crazy; that in eating at the table he would get things from the dishes and eat them with his fingers; that he was unruly and violent when rebuked. The respondent denied he had ever made such a statement to any one, and said the subject discussed in the consultation with Mr. Clough was the making of a contract under which all the children would take turn about in keeping and caring for their father. Taber...