Ryan v. Ryan

• Decision Date: 18 March 1903
• Citation: 174 Mo. 279,73 S.W. 494
• Parties: RYAN et al. v. RYAN.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

73 S.W. 494

174 Mo. 279

RYAN et al. v. RYAN.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

March 18, 1903.

DEED—UNDUE INFLUENCE—FIDUCIARY RELATION OF PARTIES—SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

1. Evidence, in an action by the children and heirs of a grantor, to set aside a deed to the latter's niece, with whom he had made his home, on the ground of undue influence in view of the grantor's habitual drunkenness, considered, and held insufficient to sustain a finding for the defendant.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Wm. Zachritz, Judge.

Suit by Margaret Ryan and others against Mary E. Ryan. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

Plaintiffs are the children and heirs of Timothy Ryan, deceased, and defendant is a niece of plaintiffs' father. The object of this suit is to set aside a deed made by Timothy Ryan, a short while before his death, to the defendant.

The statements of the petition, as grounds for the relief sought, are that the deed was made while the plaintiffs' father was in a weak and sickly condition and of unsound mind, resulting from habitual intoxication, and while he was residing with and under the influence of the defendant, and that it was obtained by her through her undue influence over him.

The testimony for the plaintiffs was to the effect that their father for more than 25 years had been addicted to the intemperate use of intoxicating liquor, and that the habit grew worse as the years went on, so that in the last few years of his life it was beyond his control, and he was a habitual drunkard. He had a little property from which he collected rents—about $30 a month —but he consumed it all in dissipation, and gave his family no assistance from it. When on a spree he would sell or pledge his working tools, and even his clothes, for money with which to purchase liquor.

The only conflict in the evidence between the plaintiffs and defendant on this point, if it amounted to a conflict, was as to the extent to which the deceased indulged the habit of drink or was controlled by it. That he was a man very much addicted to the habit, the testimony of defendant also showed. It was an undisputed fact that within the last few years of his life he had been four or five times placed in the inebriate department of St. John's Hospital, and in St. Mary's Asylum once, and, when it was endeavored to place him in the latter institution again, the sisters in charge refused to receive him, on the ground that he was crazy and they were afraid to stay in the hospital with him. He was then taken to the Alexian Brothers' Hospital and confined in the inebriate ward, and there treated for some time, and discharged as cured. That occurred in April 1898. After leaving the hospital at that time he went to live with his niece, the defendant, who kept a boarding house in the city.

There is some conflict in the evidence as to the cause of his leaving his own home and going to live with his niece. The evidence on the part of defendant on that point was to the effect that he said his wife and children beat him and drove him away, but their testimony was that they never treated him unkindly and did not drive him away. The plaintiffs' testimony also tended to show that they were not welcome to visit their father at the defendant's house, and that once one of them was refused admittance.

In September, 1898, the unfortunate man again fell into such a condition that his niece, the defendant, with whom he was then living, took him to the Alexian Brothers' Hospital, and he was again placed in the ward for inebriates, and remained there under treatment two weeks. It was on the last day of his confinement there, and while he was yet in the hospital, that he executed the deed in question. He was discharged, after executing the deed, either that day or the next.

It was agreed between the parties at the trial, and so stated in open court, that the value of the property in question was $1,000, and that it was mortgaged for $600. The only consideration expressed on the face of the deed is $5. This was not the only property Ryan owned. There were three other lots, also incumbered, and of about the same net value, which his wife and children have received.

The testimony as to what occurred at the execution of the deed was that the defendant, in company with one of her witnesses, Mrs. Dohoney, went to the hospital, and, when they arrived, the notary who took the acknowledgment was already there, the blank deed was filled out by the notary, and it was signed and acknowledged by Timothy Ryan within five minutes after they arrived, Mrs. Dohoney signing it as a witness. There were present Mr. Dunn, one of the Alexian Brothers, the notary, Miss Ryan, the defendant, and Mrs. Dohoney.

Mr. Dunn testified that Timothy Ryan was "perfectly cognizant of what he was doing," and that he was discharged as cured the next day. Mrs. Dohoney also testified that at that time "he had his perfect sense; * * * there was nothing in his manner or conversation that was peculiar." There was also testimony for defendant to the effect that Ryan had said that his niece had done a great deal for him by boarding and lodging after he had been put out of his own home, and he intended this deed to pay her for what she had done for him. The testimony also tended to show that his niece treated him kindly and took care of him. After Ryan executed the deed and came out of the hospital, he continued to collect the rents and appropriated the same to his own use, and there was evidence tending to...