Sharpe v. McPike

• Decision Date: 31 January 1876
• Parties: MARGARET SHARPE, Respondent, v. HENRY C. MCPIKE, et al., Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

62 Mo. 300

MARGARET SHARPE, Respondent,

v.HENRY C. MCPIKE, et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1876.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

Henderson & Shields, for Appellant, cited Creighton vs. Ladley, 6 Am. L. Reg., 359; Green vs. Godfrey, 44 Me., 25; Barnet vs. Barnet, 15 Serg. & Rawle, 72; 3 Casey, 22; 2 Wright, 324; Hartley vs. Fruh, 6 Tex., 209; Campbell vs. Terrel, 3 Yerg., 548; 6 Blackf., 391; Jameson vs. Jameson, 3 Whart., 469; Elwood vs. Klock, 13 Barb., 50; Schaforth vs. Ambs, 46 Mo., 114; Miller vs. Brown, 47 Mo., 504; Seimers vs. Kleeburg, 56 Mo., 196; Debow vs. Wagoner, 56 Mo., 347; Whiteside vs. Camon, 23 Mo., 457; Coates vs. Robinson, 10 Mo., 758.

Martin & Lackland, for Respondents, cited McCandless vs. English, 51 Penn., 309; Tapley vs. Tapley, 10 Minn., 448; Fisk vs. Stubbs, 30 Ala., 335; Wiley vs. Prince, 21 Tex., 637; Brooks vs. Berryhill, 20 Ind., 97; Wilson vs. Bull, 10 Ohio, 250; Wolf vs. Vanmater, 19 Ia., 134; Green vs. Scrange, 19 Ia., 461; Sears vs. Shafer, 6 N. Y., 268; Walker vs. Reamy, 36 Penn., 410; Forshay vs. Ferguson, 5 Hill, 158; Watkins vs. Baird, 6 Mass., 506; Eadie vs. Simon, 36 N. Y., 9; Howell vs. Ransom, 11 Paige, 538; Evans vs. Ellis, 5 Den., 641; Whelan vs. Whelan, 3 Cow., 537; Bateman vs. Davis, 3 Mad. Ch., 59; Emison vs. Whittelsey, 55 Mo., 254; Walter vs. Walter, 48 Mo., 140.

NAPTON, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a bill in equity to relieve the separate estate of the plaintiff, wife of one of the defendants, from the incumbrance of a mortgage executed by herself and her husband.

The grounds, upon which the equitable interposition of the court is asked, are, that the deed was executed by the plaintiff under duress and through fraudulent practices, and by undue influence of the husband, who was also trustee, to which the other defendants were parties.

The deed creating the trust in the husband and a separate estate in the wife was executed the 10th of July, 1869, and conveys a tract of land, particularly described, to the husband, one of the defendants, in trust for the sole and separate use, benfit, etc., of the plaintiff, and the grantee covenants and agrees to and with said plaintiff that he will suffer and permit her without let or hinderance to have, hold, use and occupy the premises conveyed, and enjoy the rents and profits, for her own sole use and benefit, separate and apart from her husband, and wholly free from his control and interference and from his debts; and that he would at all times, at the request of said Margaret W. Sharpe, plaintiff, expressed in writing, signed by her or by her authority, bargain, sell, mortgage, convey, lease, rent or otherwise control or dispose of such premises, or such part, thereof, as may then be held by him under the deed, and all profits and proceeds thereof, in such manner, and to such person or persons, and at such time, as the said Margaret shall by her last will and testament, or any other writing signed by, or by her authority, direct or appoint, and in default of such appointment that he would convey said premises to the heirs of said Margaret by said husband begotten, etc.

The deed which is sought to be avoided by plaintiff is dated June 1st, 1870.

This deed purports to be made by John W. Sharpe, in his own right and as trustee of Margaret Sharpe, his wife, and by Margaret Sharpe, as parties of the first part and Henry C. McPike of the second part, and Abraham McPike of the third part. The deed conveys the tract of land, described in the former conveyance, to the trustee, Henry C. McPike, reciting that the party of the first part (John W. Sharpe and his wife) was indebted to the party of the third part, (Abe McPike) in the sum of $2,000.00, for which amount they had executed four promissory notes, the principal note for the sum of $2,000 payable three years after date, and three interest notes, each for the sum of $200, payable respectively in 12 months, 24 and 36 months after date, all of said notes bearing even date herewith, executed by said J. W. Sharpe, J. W. Sharpe, trustee for Margaret Sharpe, his wife, and Margaret Sharpe, for value received to the order of A. McPike, bearing interest after maturity at the rate of ten per cent. per annum.

The deed then provided, that if said notes or either of them, or any part thereof, should not be paid at maturity, then all of said notes should become due and the trustee was authorized to sell, etc. This deed was signed by J. W. Sharpe, J. W. Sharpe, trustee for Margaret Sharpe, and Margaret Sharpe.

And the attestation is as follows: “Be it remembered, that on this the 24th day of June, 1870, before me the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the county of St. Louis, etc., came John W. Sharpe, in his own right and as trustee of Margaret Sharpe his wife, and Margaret Sharpe, who are personally known to me to be the same persons whose names are subscribed to the foregoing instrument of writing as parties thereto, and they acknowledged the same to be their act and deed for the purposes therein mentioned, she, the said Margaret Sharpe, having been first by me made acquainted with the contents of the foregoing conveyance, acknowledged on an examination separate and apart from her husband, that she executed the same freely and without compulsion or undue influence of her said husband,” etc. Signed by the Notary.

The charges in the petition, upon which relief is sought, are as heretofore stated, that the deed was signed by her through the exercise of fraudulent practices, and misrepresentations of her husband and the McPikes, and through improper influence and under duress, and further, that the certificate of the notary is false, that she never was examined separate and apart from her husband, that she never acknowledged the deed to be her act--that she was not made acquainted with the contents of the deed by the notary, and she never acknowledged the execution thereof freely. The petition states, that the debt secured by this deed was a prior debt of her husband, and was, even so far as her husband was concerned, partly fraudulent; that her husband was insolvent; that her husband and the McPikes confederated to get her to sign said deed; that she finally consented to sign the deed, after repeated solicitations of her husband and the McPikes, and threats on the part of her husband of abandonment, and under positive orders from her husband. The bill charges that the defendants, the McPikes, were fully cognizant of the threats and violence and undue influence exercised by her husband.

The answer of the McPikes denies all the charges in the petition.

The testimony in the case is voluminous. To recite it or even to undertake to condense it, could not subserve any useful purpose in the establishment of any principle of equity. There is really no principle of law or equity disputed in the case, except in regard to the effect of the notary's certificate, and that has already been decided in this court, and there is therefore no question to determine, except whether the decree is in accordance with the evidence.

The testimony shows very clearly, that the debt for which this deed and notes were executed was a debt of the husband created anterior to the deed, unless a very small sum advanced to the husband shortly prior to its execution, and that the husband was totally insolvent. It is conceded, however, that a wife has a right to mortgage her separate estate to secure an antecedent debt of the husband, and the question of fact in the case is, whether this deed was induced or brought about by any unfair or improper influences exerted on the wife.

The evidence shows very clearly, that there was a great reluctance on the part of Mrs. Sharpe to acknowledge this deed. The parties, husband and wife, so far as the testimony shows, seem to have been living together, up to the time of the execution of this deed, and since, without the occurrence of any serious quarrel or dispute.

There is no evidence of any actual force, or violence, on the part of the husband, to compel his wife's signature to the deed.

The testimony of the plaintiff, and her sister and daughter, tended to show that the McPikes and Sharpe, who at the time were on friendly terms, made use of very ingenious devices to procure Mrs. Sharpe's acquiescence in this mortgage; that Mrs. Sharpe was originally unwilling to sign the notes and mortgage, and that a considerable time elapsed from the beginning to the end of the negotiations, during which she was twice visited at her house by the McPikes. There was evidence on the part of the plaintiff, that Sharpe threatened to leave his family, if the notes and deeds were not signed, and all the evidence of the plaintiff and of the daughter and sister tended to show, that there was a serious difference of opinion between Mr. Sharpe and his wife as to the propriety of her signing the...