Smelser v. Meier
| Decision Date | 01 June 1917 |
| Citation | 196 S.W. 22,271 Mo. 178 |
| Parties | ROSA SMELSER et al., Appellants, v. DIEDRICH MEIER et al |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court. -- Hon. E. M. Dearing, Judge.
Affirmed.
E. J Bean and Clyde Williams for appellant.
(1) A married woman cannot convey her real estate without her husband joining in the deed, and the deed from Rosina Meier to Diedrich Meier her husband is null and void. R. S. 1909 sec. 2788; Brown v. Dressler, 125 Mo. 589; Huff v. Price, 50 Mo. 229; Wannall v. Kem, 51 Mo 150; Shroyer v. Nickell, 55 Mo. 264; Bartlet v. O'Donoghue, 72 Mo. 563; Hord v. Taubman, 79 Mo. 101; Marshall v. Anderson, 78 Mo. 85; Shaffer v. Kugler, 107 Mo. 58; Peter v. Byrne, 175 Mo. 241; Richardson v. DeGiverville, 107 Mo. 429; DePue v. Miller, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 775; McReynolds v. Grubb, 150 Mo. 363; Clay v. Mayer, 183 Mo. 157; O'Reilly v. Kluender, 193 Mo. 585; Egger v. Egger, 225 Mo. 140; 21 Cyc. 1291; Bearden v. Miller, 54 Mo.App. 201. (2) The Married Woman's Law of 1889 acts prospectively and does not in any way affect this case because Diedrich Meier and Rosina Meier were married at the time it was passed and the title to the real estate, except one piece, was held by Rosina Meier at the time said law was passed. Leete v. Bank, 115 Mo. 185; Vanata v. Johnson, 170 Mo. 273; Graham v. Ketchum, 192 Mo. 29. (3) The Statute of Limitation has no application in this case. (4) A fiduciary relation existing between Diedrich Meier and Rosina Meier, being husband and wife, and he having full charge and control of her property, the burden of proof was on him to show that the transfer from her to him was the result of full and free deliberation on her part and not the result of undue influence. 21 Cyc. 1293; Lewis v. McGrath, 61 N.E. 138; Egger v. Egger, 225 Mo. 144; Byrne v. Byrne, 250 Mo. 646; Smith v. Moore, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 692.
Wm. S. Campbell, Jones H. Parker and John Reppy for respondents.
(1) The disability under which a married woman labored at common law has been removed by statute, and a man and his wife may contract with each other, sue and be sued by each other, and convey title to property from one to the other, the same as other parties, and Rosina Meier was legally competent to convey the realty held in her name by the deed she made direct to Diedrich Meier. Rice, Stix & Co. v. Sally, 176 Mo. 129; O'Day v. Meadows, 194 Mo. 614; Grimes v. Reynolds, 184 Mo. 692; 94 Mo.App. 576; Montgomery v. Montgomery, 142 Mo.App. 486; Glascock v. Glascock, 217 Mo. 378; Harvey v. Long, 260 Mo. 391; Rodgers v. Rodgers, 265 Mo. 207; Abbott v. Trust Co., 149 Mo.App. 514; Bower v. Daniel, 198 Mo. 320; Evans v. Morris, 234 Mo. 186. Any contract entered into by a married woman after the passage of the Act of 1889 was valid without regard to the time when the title to the real estate was taken by her or when the marriage contract was entered into. Clay v. Mayer, 183 Mo. 158; Evans v. Morris, 234 Mo. 186; Bank v. Hageluken, 165 Mo. 449. (2) A cause of action to set aside the deed of February 10, 1897, accrued to Rosina Meier, and at her death the Statute of Limitations began to run against her heirs, whether they were under legal disability or not, and their suit to set aside the said deed for fraud not having been commenced within ten years after the right of action accrued to Rosina Meier, they are barred by the statute. De Hatre v. Edmonds, 200 Mo. 270; Robinson v. Allison, 192 Mo. 372; Rutter v. Carothers, 223 Mo. 646; Reed v. Painter, 145 Mo. 341; Star v. Bartz, 219 Mo. 47; McKee v. Downing, 224 Mo. 115. Where a cause of action accrues to one who is at the time under a disability, when that disability is removed another disability cannot be tacked on to it. De Hatre v. Edmonds, 200 Mo. 271; Robinson v. Allison, 192 Mo. 376; Burdett v. May, 100 Mo. 19; Campbell v. Gas Co., 84 Mo. 376; Billon v. Larimore, 37 Mo. 387. (3) The introduction of the deed made by Rosina Meier to Diedrich Meier, showing on its face a consideration, and the acknowledgment of a notary public to her signature, was not sufficient alone to cast the burden upon Diedrich Meier to disprove the allegations of plaintiff's petition. Jenkins v. Pye, 37 U.S. 253; Townson v. Moore, 173 U.S. 17; Taylor v. Taylor, 49 U.S. 183; Deroux v. Girard's Ex's, 112 F. 89.
On April 9, 1913, plaintiffs, as heirs at law of Rosina Meier, deceased, brought suit in the Jefferson County Circuit Court, against defendants, Diedrich Meier et al., to set aside and cancel a deed for 514 acres of land in Jefferson County, executed by said Rosina Meier, on February 10, 1897, to her husband, Diedrich Meier; and also to set aside and cancel a deed from the heirs of said Rosina Meier to said Diedrich Meier, dated March 1, 1898, covering the same land. It is alleged in the petition that the deed from Rosina Meier to Diedrich Meier was obtained through undue influence and duress, exercised by said grantee over his said wife; that the deed from said heirs to Diedrich Meier was obtained through false and fraudulent representations and threats. The petition prays the court to set aside and cancel both of the foregoing deeds.
On June 5, 1913, defendants, Catherine Meier, Kate Wolf and George Wolf, filed a general denial. Diedrich Meier answered with a general denial, and pleaded that said real estate conveyed to his wife was paid for with his own earnings; that the title was taken in the name of his wife as a matter of convenience; that said land was not conveyed to her as an advancement, or by way of settlement, but as trustee for himself; that on February 10, 1897, she conveyed said land to him in carrying out said trust. He likewise pleads the ten-year Statute of Limitations as a bar to the present action. The reply was a general denial.
On January 25, 1892, Henry F. Meier and Lina Meier, for the expressed consideration of one dollar, conveyed by warranty deed to said Rosina Meier, the east half of the north half of section 17, township 42, range 4, containing 160 acres, situate in Jefferson County, Missouri. On February 3, 1879, A. G. Medley and wife conveyed to Rosina Meier, by warranty deed, for the expressed consideration of $ 425, the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 9, township 42, range 4 east, containing 40 acres more or less. On March 6, 1879, Frank Williams and wife et al. conveyed to Rosina Meier, by quit-claim deed, for the expressed consideration of $ 1200, the whole of their undivided interests as the heirs of Benjamin Williams, deceased, in the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of section 9, and 40 acres off the north end of the west half of the northwest quarter of section 9, all in township 42, range 4 east. On February 10, 1885, James W. Fitzmorris and wife conveyed by quit-claim deed to Rosina Meier, for the expressed consideration of $ 363, the south part of the east half of section 8, township 42, range 4 east, more fully described in the record, and containing 174 acres more or less. On February 10, 1897, Rosina Meier, conveyed to Diedrich Meier, by warranty deed, for the expressed consideration of $ 10, the 514 acres mentioned in the petition. The foregoing deed was filed for record, February 18, 1897. On May 22, 1897, Diedrich Meier, conveyed to Henry Hess, for the expressed consideration of $ 4600, by warranty deed, the same land described in above deed from Rosina Meier to Diedrich Meier, dated February 10, 1897 (514 acres). On February 7, 1897, Henry Hess, by quit-claim deed, for the expressed consideration of $ 4600, re-conveyed the above 514 acres of land to Diedrich Meier. This deed was filed for record, February 16, 1898. On March 1, 1898, Kate Wolf and husband, Frederika Dausch and husband, Dora Wolf and husband, Maggie Scott and husband, Rosey Rush and husband, Emma Loney and husband, and Mellia Meier, by quit-claim deed, for the expressed consideration of one dollar to each, conveyed 454 acres, being the same 514 acres, except the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter and the north half of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of section 9, township 42, range 4 east (60 acres). This deed was filed for record, July 1, 1898. On February 19, 1913, Diedrich Meier and Catherine Meier, his wife, conveyed to Helen Surkamp, by warranty deed, for the expressed consideration of one dollar, the 514 acres above mentioned. This deed was filed for record, March 3, 1913. On February 19, 1913, Helen Surkamp, by quit-claim deed, for the expressed consideration of one dollar conveyed the above 514 acres to Diedrich Meier and Catherine Meier his wife. This deed was filed for record, March 3, 1913. On November 27, 1886, R. W. McMullin and wife, conveyed to Diedrich Meier the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter and the north half of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of section 9, township 42, range 4 east (60 acres).
Several of the plaintiffs were sworn and said they signed the deed to their father, but thought it was to Hess. They testified that their father promised to give them the same interest in the land which he was proposing to buy, as they had in the 454 acres supra; that their father gave them to understand they would be disinherited if they failed or refused to sign said deed, and threatened to club them if they refused to sign the same. Plaintiffs introduced some other testimony of the same character. The appellants who were witnesses also testified in substance that they did not know the deed which they executed conveyed said land to their father; and that they first learned the deed was to him less than seven years before the commencement of this suit.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial