Sinnett v. Sinnett

• Decision Date: 04 March 1918
• Docket Number: No. 19151.,19151.
• Parties: SINNETT et al. v. SINNETT et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

201 S.W. 887

SINNETT et al. v. SINNETT et al.

No. 19151.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

March 4, 1918.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Saline County; Samuel Davis, Judge.

Action by William H. Sinnett and others against Jesse Sinnett and others for the cancellation of a deed. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

This suit was instituted in the circuit court for Saline county, May 21, 1914. The plaintiffs are eight of the ten children of William B. Sinnett, of said county, who died on the night of May 9, 1914, at the age of 84 years. The defendants are Mr. Sinnett's two remaining children, Jesse Sinnett and Mary E. Tennell, the wife of Jesse and the husband of Mrs. Tennell, together with Absolum Iman and Adam Iman, who acquired the land from their codefendants by deed dated May 18, 1914. The suit is to procure the setting aside and cancellation of a deed from the deceased, which is in words and figures following:

"Know all men by these presents that I, William B. Sinnett, a single man and a widower, of the county of Saline, in the state of Missouri, have this day, for and in consideration of love and affection and the care and maintenance of myself during my life, and the sum of three hundred ($300.00) dollars to the said William B. Sinnett in hand paid by Jesse A. Sinnett and Mary E. Tennell, my son and daughter, of the county of Saline, in the state of Missouri, granted, bargained, and sold, and by these presents do grant, bargain, and sell, unto the said Jesse A. Sinnett and Mary E. Tennell the following described tracts or parcels of land, situate in the county of Saline, in the state of Missouri, that is to say: The northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of section eighteen (18), township fifty-one (51), range nineteen (19), also a strip fifteen feet wide off of the south end of the west half of the southeast quarter of section seven (7), township and range aforesaid, reserving to myself the use, rents, and profits of all of said land for and during the remainder of my natural life. To have and to hold the premises hereby conveyed, with all the rights, privileges, and appurtenances hereto belonging or in any wise appertaining, unto the said Jesse A. Sinnett and Mary E. Tennell, their heirs and assigns, forever; I, the said William B. Sinnett, hereby covenanting to and with the said Jesse A. Sinnett and Mary E. Tennell, their heirs and assigns, for myself, my heirs, executors, and administrators, to warrant and defend the title to the premises hereby conveyed against the claim of every person whatsoever, except as to taxes due in the fall of the present year and thereafter.

"In testimony whereof I hereto subscribe my name and affix my seal this first day of May, 1914."

And also the deed from the defendants Jesse Sinnett and wife and Mary E. Tennell and husband to the defendants Iman.

The ground upon which the relief is asked is that, at the time of the execution of the deed from William B. Sinnett, his mind had become impaired to such an extent by age and disease that he was unable to resist the influence of the grantees, and that while in that condition they had influenced him improperly to procure it. The petition also alleged notice of these conditions on the part of the Imans. As no question is made in argument upon its sufficiency, it is not necessary to state its terms more particularly.

The joint answer admitted the relationship of the parties stated in the petition, the execution of the various instruments therein referred to, and ended with a general denial of every other allegation therein contained. Issue was joined by replication.

The facts in evidence showed that the deceased, grantor in the deed against which this proceeding is directed, was 84 years old at the time of his death; that prior to the death of his wife, which occurred on February 2, 1914, he had lived with her on the 40 acres of land in question, and that George Sinnett lived with them and worked on the place. The defendant Jesse Sinnett then lived in another house on the same land. When Mrs. Sinnett died his health was very bad. He was afflicted with inflammation of the bladder and prostate gland, and was nearing the last stage of Bright's disease of the kidneys. These diseases were of an extremely painful character, and Dr. Benbow, his physician, who had attended him many years, and visited him two or three times a week for several weeks before his death, testified, without objection, that the disease naturally affected his mind and had affected it for several months before his death. He declined from the death of his wife, both mentally and physically. His last visit to Mr. Sinnett was on April 29, 1914, when he found him in a semicomatose condition, suffering from absorption of urine. The doctor told some of the family that Mr. Sinnett could not live more than 10 days at the outside, and that it wasn't necessary for him to return any more. Sometimes his mental condition would be fair and then he would become comatose—would not know anything at all. His mind would clear up and he would recognize people he was acquainted with and talk very sensibly. There would be no coordination in his talk. He would talk about every and anything that ever happened, but when you spoke to him and called his attention to anything he would talk very intelligently about it. He had a very tenacious memory, and when you would get him started he would talk very sensibly. The doctor also testified that when he left Mr. Sinnett's house that evening and went out to get in his buggy, either Mr. Jesse Sinnett or Mr. Marion Tennell, both of whom were there, asked him if the old man was in a condition to be taken to Slater, and he answered that if he took him he was liable to bring him back a corpse. That he did not say what they were taking him for. Dr. Benbow also testified that after the death of his wife Mr. Sinnett had talked to him about some of his children having begun proceedings in the probate court for the appointment of a guardian. He had asked the doctor at that time whether he was crazy, and the doctor answered "No," and that he did not like to make a statement about what his testimony would be, because he did not know what he would be asked. The defendant Jesse Sinnett denied that he asked the doctor about taking the old man to town, and says that during that visit the old gentleman said to the doctor, "I want you to pay strict attention to ray mind to see whether I am crazy," and thinks the doctor answered, "If you are crazy, I am too."

Dr. Davidson, who visited Mr. Sinnett on each of the two last days of his life, testified as to his mental condition as follows:

"Q. State to the court what condition you found him in there at the time—as far as the condition of mind? A. Well, he was apparently rational. He was suffering intensely with his bladder trouble, and I asked him about his condition, and he told me; he was able to tell me what hurt him and where it hurt him, and I considered him at that time in his right mind."

After Mrs. Sinnett's death the old gentleman went to the other house on his place to live with his son Jesse, where he remained about six weeks, and then went to Mrs. Tennell's where he remained the rest of his life. During that time the plaintiff William Sinnett met Mr. Tennell, who told him that while the father lived he (Tennell) did not want any of the family to come there, but if he died they were all welcome to come.

It was at this time that William consented that the guardianship proceeding, which had been begun in March, and to which all the children except the two defendants were parties, should be discontinued, which was done.

There was also the usual testimony of acquaintances who had met Mr. Sinnett during the period covered by his sickness, and related their impressions as to his mental condition.

The cause was tried by the court, resulting in a finding and judgment for the defendants, and, after the necessary formalities, this appeal was taken and the cause is here upon its merits.

Virgil V. Huff, of Marshall, for appellants. Com. P. Storts, of Slater, and Harvey & Bellamy, of Marshall, for respondents.

BROWN, C. (after stating the facts as above).

While in a suit of this character, which stands solely on the demand for equitable relief, it is our duty, when the findings of the trial court are questioned here, to examine and weigh the evidence for ourselves, yet in doing so we must bear in mind that certain elements were properly before that court for its observation and consideration which are not on paper and cannot be brought before us. It might greatly aid us if we could see the witnesses under examination and hear them testify so that we might have the benefit of their personality. For these and perhaps other reasons we should and do defer to the conclusion of the court having these advantages. To fail to do so would be to overlook those statutory rules of procedure, in equity as well as at law, which enable the parties to require the production of the living witnesses, when reasonably practicable. Johnson v. Stebbins, 177 Mo. loc. cit. 597, 76 S. W. 1021; Huffman v. Huffman, 217 Mo. loc. cit. 191, 192, 117 S. W. 1; Hunter v. Briggs, 254 Mo. loc. cit. 64, 162 S. W. 204; McFarland v. Brown, 193 S. W. 800. In cases of this character, the feelings and motives of the participants are often important to be considered in arriving at a just conclusion, and the advantage in this respect of the chancellor who confronts them is obvious.

The result in this case depends primarily upon the questions (1) whether the grantor in the...