Securities Inv. Co. of St. Louis v. Williams, 44196

• Decision Date: 16 January 1967
• Docket Number: No. 44196,44196
• Citation: 193 So.2d 719
• Parties: SECURITIES INVESTMENT COMPANY OF ST. LOUIS, Jackson, Mississippi v. O. C. WILLIAMS and Annie Lee Williams.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 719

193 So.2d 719

SECURITIES INVESTMENT COMPANY OF ST. LOUIS, Jackson Mississippi v. O. C. WILLIAMS and Annie Lee Williams.

No. 44196.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 16, 1967.

King & Powell, Jackson, for appellant.

Jerry T. Johnston, Brandon, for appellees.

SMITH, Justice.

This is an appeal by K. V. Builders, Inc., a Missouri Corporation, and Securities Investment Company of St. Louis, Jackson, Mississippi, from a decree of the Chancery Court of Rankin County, cancelling a certain trust deed upon the lands of appellees, O. C. Williams and his wife, Annie Lee Williams, held by Securities Investment Company as assignee of K. V. Builders, Inc.

Suit was begun by O. C. Williams and Annie Lee Williams against K. V. Builders and Securities Investment Company of St. Louis, Harry Green, Bill Greenwood and Robert W. King, the latter in his capacity as trustee in the trust deed. This bill sought an injunction against the foreclosure of the trust deed and its cancellation as a cloud upon appellees' title to certain land in Rankin County.

The bill charged that Harry Green and Bill Greenwood, agents of K. V. Builders, called upon O. C. Williams, age 79, and his wife, Annie Lee Williams, age 77, at their farm home in Rankin County, and presented themselves as representatives of the federal government sent out to remodel and repair old houses. They informed appellees, who were illiterate (Annie Lee Williams could, laboriously, write out her signature, but O. C. Williams could not even write his name) that the federal government would pay half of the cost of certain repairs that they proposed to make to appellees' home. They said that these repairs would not cost more than $200. When appellees told these persons that they had no money to pay even this small sum, and were unwilling to mortgage their home to get it, they were told that it would not be necessary to do so. Appellees were persuaded by these 'federal agents' to sign a 'paper,' but the only testimony in the record, touching upon the subject of what paper was signed, is that it was a yellow paper and, apparently, it was a contract with K. V. Builders for the making of repairs to their home, as such a contract is the only one of the original documents on yellow paper.

This contract provided that K. V. Builders would make certain repairs to the home, the repairs having been described in the contract in the vaguest terms, for a 'cash' price of $2200, or for a 'credit price' of $3311.40, to be paid in sixty monthly installments of $55.19 each. This 'contract' was dated January 4, 1965.

Some work was done on the house. But the only testimony in the record regarding its value is that it was worth not more than $400.

K. V. Builders, whose agents Harry Green and Bill Greenwood actually were, produced a promissory note in the principal sum of $3311.40, payable in sixty monthly installments of $55.19 each, together with a trust deed covering appellees' 60-acre farm home place, purporting to have been executed by them and also dated January 4, 1965. The trust deed bore the certificate of acknowledgment of a Hinds County Notary Public, whose office was in Jackson, dated January 11, 1965. On January 11, 1965, K. V. Builders assigned this note and trust deed to Securities Investment Company of St. Louis. The assignment of the note was by endorsement 'without recourse.'

In addition to the certificate of acknowledgment, the trust deed bore the purported signatures of O. C. Williams and Annie Lee Williams (that of the former appearing by 'mark') and also the signatures of four other persons, ostensibly witnesses to its execution. These 'signatures' were of Bill Greenwood, Harry Green, Jeff D. Davis and Willie Mae Davis. None of these persons was produced or testified at the trial, although O. C. Williams and Annie Lee Williams emphatically denied signing the note or trust deed.

The Notary Public did testify, but he admitted that he did not know O. C. Williams or Annie Lee Williams, and was unable to say more than that persons who were represented to him to be O. C. Williams and Annie Lee Williams, had appeared before him in his Jackson office and had acknowledged the execution of the trust deed. Both O. C. Williams and Annie Lee Williams denied having been in Jackson at the time, and denied the acknowledgment. No attempt was made to have the Notary Public identify appellees, and he could give no account of the other four signatures on the trust deed.

Securities Investment Company took the position that it was an innocent purchaser for value, without notice of any infirmity in the title of K. V. Builders. The answer and crossbill of Securities Investment Company alleged that it had purchased the note from K. V. Builders 'in the regular course of business for a valid consideration.' Neither the nature nor the amount of this 'valid' consideration appears either in the pleadings or in the evidence.

Securities Investment Company introduced testimony to the effect that O. C. Williams had been contacted on the telephone about his 'account' and also that he had been sent a printed form letter which referred to his delinquent account.

It is urged by Securities Investment Company that this, and the admitted payment of several of the monthly installments before they finally refused to go further with the matter, show that appellees had, in fact, executed the note and trust deed. The making of these payments, identical with those provided for in the construction contract, which appellees admitted signing, was in no way inconsistent with the position that they were made under the contract, nor does it amount to evidence that they executed the note or trust deed. Appellees knew nothing of finance or business, were wholly without independent advice or counsel, and were completely uneducated. There is no rational basis to assume, from the fact that some payments were made on the 'account,' that this indicated that they understood...