Rhoade v. Fuller

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtBurgess
Citation40 S.W. 760,139 Mo. 179
Decision Date11 May 1897
PartiesRHOADES et ux. v. FULLER.
40 S.W. 760
139 Mo. 179
RHOADES et ux.
v.
FULLER.
Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.
May 11, 1897.

INSANITY — INQUEST AS EVIDENCE — WAIVER OF OBJECTION — AVOIDING EXCHANGE.

1. Where, in a suit to set aside an exchange of land on the ground of plaintiff's insanity, the record of an inquest held 20 days after the exchange, and adjudging plaintiff insane, was admitted, against defendant's objection, to prove insanity at the time of the exchange, defendant did not waive such objection by afterwards allowing the record to be introduced to show insanity at the time of inquest.

2. In a suit to set aside an exchange on the ground of plaintiff's insanity, the record of an inquest held 20 days after the exchange, and adjudging plaintiff insane, was not admissible.

3. Plaintiff was not entitled to have an exchange set aside on the ground of his insanity, though he offered to restore what he had received, where there was no evidence of knowledge of the insanity or fraud on part of defendant, and plaintiff was not under guardianship at the time of the exchange.

Appeal from circuit court, Mercer county; P. C. Stepp, Judge.

Suit by Jesse B. Rhoades, by his guardian, T. I. Carter, and Rebecca Rhoades, his wife, against Justin Fuller. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed.

This is a suit in equity by Jesse B. Rhoades, who sues by his guardian, T. I. Carter, and Rebecca Rhoades, the wife of said Jesse, against defendant, to rescind the contract for the exchange of a farm in Mercer county, Mo., conveyed by said Rhoades and wife to said defendant, Fuller, for a house and lot in Princeton, in said county, upon the ground of the insanity of said Rhoades at the time of the trade or exchange. The petition alleges that Rhoades is an insane person, and that before the commencement of this suit T. I. Carter had been duly appointed and qualified as his guardian; that on November 1, 1893, plaintiff Rhoades was the owner of 125 acres of land in Mercer county, which was incumbered by a mortgage of $1,000 to Deering & Co. and the Omaha Loan & Trust Company; that the said Rhoades had long been an insane person; that the defendant and his attorney falsely represented to said Rhoades that his farm was about to be sold under the said mortgages, and by said representations induced Rhoades and his wife to exchange said lands subject to said mortgage for a house and lot in Princeton, which house and lot, it is alleged, were falsely represented by the defendant to be of the value of $750, when in fact they were not worth more than $150; that the said Rhoades was at the time of making the trade incompetent to transact business by reason of insanity. It also alleges that the defendant, with the intent to cheat and defraud plaintiff Rhoades, and to get his land at less than its value, falsely and fraudulently stated and represented to him that said land would be sold within two days thereafter under said mortgages, unless he arranged to pay them off. The petition alleges that plaintiffs offer to reconvey the house and lot to defendant, to refund to him all moneys paid out by him on the mortgages, and prays that the contract for the exchange of the properties, and the deed from Rhoades and wife to defendant for the farm, be canceled. The answer denied the allegations in the petition, and alleged that at the time of the exchange of the farm for the house and lot there were three mortgages or deeds of trust on said farm, two of which, and the interest on the other, was then past due, and that said Rhoades stated to the defendant that the same was about to be foreclosed; that defendant, on the 25th day of November, 1893, paid Deering & Co. on their said mortgage the sum of $32.34, being the amount then due on the same, and on the 13th day of November, 1893, he paid on the Omaha Loan & Trust Company deed of trust interest due thereon amounting to $30.40; that he also, on the 16th day of November, 1893, paid the principal and interest of another mortgage, held by the Omaha Loan & Trust Company, amounting to $81, and at the request of said Rhoades he paid a judgment against him amounting to $4.39. Rhoades bought the land in question in 1890 for $1,400. He borrowed nearly all of the money to pay for it, giving a mortgage on the land to secure the borrowed money. At the time of the trade

[40 S.W. 761]

there was about $1,000 against it. There was one mortgage for about $80, and the interest on the mortgage to the Omaha Company, and also the principal mortgage which became...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 practice notes
  • Motter v. Patterson, No. 705.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • 18 Diciembre 1933
    ...S. W. 656, 657, 34 A. L. R. 1399; Flach v. Gottschalk Co., 88 Md. 368, 41 A. 908, 42 L. R. A. 745, 71 Am. St. Rep. 418; Rhoades v. Fuller, 139 Mo. 179, 40 S. W. 760, 762; Gwinn v. Hobbs, 83 Ind. App. 263, 141 N. E. 812, 817, 144 N. E. 648; Dowlin v. Boyd (Tex. Civ. App.) 284 S. W. 636, 641;......
  • Taylor v. Taylor , No. 21,399.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 29 Noviembre 1910
    ...and also as wholly inadmissible. Howes v. Colburn, supra; Entwhistle v. Meikle (1899) 180 Ill. 9, 54 N. E. 217;Rhoades v. Fuller (1897) 139 Mo. 179, 40 S. W. 760;Chase v. Spencer (1907) 150 Mich. 99, 113 N. W. 578;Knox v. Haug (1892) 48 Minn. 58, 50 N. W. 934;In re Pinney's Will (1880) 27 M......
  • Schuler v. Schuler, No. 29460
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 15 Mayo 1956
    ...not retrospective. * * *' An adjudication of insanity does not determine the insanity of a person at a prior time. In Rhoades v. Fuller, 139 Mo. 179, 40 S.W. 760, a suit to rescind a contract for the exchange of real property on the ground of the insanity of the grantor at the time of the t......
  • Taylor v. Taylor, 21,399
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 29 Noviembre 1910
    ...of the date of the adjudication. Howes v. Colburn, supra; Entwistle v. Meikle (1899), 180 Ill. 9, 54 N.E. 217; Rhoades v. Fuller (1897), 139 Mo. 179, 40 S.W. 760; Chase v. Spencer (1907), 150 Mich. 99, 113 N.W. 578; Knox v. Haug (1892), 48 Minn. 58, 50 N.W. 934; In re Pinney's Will (1880), ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
25 cases
  • Motter v. Patterson, No. 705.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • 18 Diciembre 1933
    ...S. W. 656, 657, 34 A. L. R. 1399; Flach v. Gottschalk Co., 88 Md. 368, 41 A. 908, 42 L. R. A. 745, 71 Am. St. Rep. 418; Rhoades v. Fuller, 139 Mo. 179, 40 S. W. 760, 762; Gwinn v. Hobbs, 83 Ind. App. 263, 141 N. E. 812, 817, 144 N. E. 648; Dowlin v. Boyd (Tex. Civ. App.) 284 S. W. 636, 641;......
  • Taylor v. Taylor , No. 21,399.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 29 Noviembre 1910
    ...and also as wholly inadmissible. Howes v. Colburn, supra; Entwhistle v. Meikle (1899) 180 Ill. 9, 54 N. E. 217;Rhoades v. Fuller (1897) 139 Mo. 179, 40 S. W. 760;Chase v. Spencer (1907) 150 Mich. 99, 113 N. W. 578;Knox v. Haug (1892) 48 Minn. 58, 50 N. W. 934;In re Pinney's Will (1880) 27 M......
  • Schuler v. Schuler, No. 29460
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 15 Mayo 1956
    ...not retrospective. * * *' An adjudication of insanity does not determine the insanity of a person at a prior time. In Rhoades v. Fuller, 139 Mo. 179, 40 S.W. 760, a suit to rescind a contract for the exchange of real property on the ground of the insanity of the grantor at the time of the t......
  • Taylor v. Taylor, 21,399
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 29 Noviembre 1910
    ...of the date of the adjudication. Howes v. Colburn, supra; Entwistle v. Meikle (1899), 180 Ill. 9, 54 N.E. 217; Rhoades v. Fuller (1897), 139 Mo. 179, 40 S.W. 760; Chase v. Spencer (1907), 150 Mich. 99, 113 N.W. 578; Knox v. Haug (1892), 48 Minn. 58, 50 N.W. 934; In re Pinney's Will (1880), ......
  • 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