Snyder v. Arn

• Decision Date: 14 March 1905
• Citation: 187 Mo. 165,86 S.W. 197
• Parties: SNYDER et al. v. ARN et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

86 S.W. 197

187 Mo. 165

SNYDER et al. v. ARN et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

March 14, 1905.

PARTITION — CONTROVERSY BETWEEN CODEFENDANTS—EQUITY JURISDICTION — STATUTE —DEED — FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS— EVIDENCE—SUFFICIENCY.

1. After the decision of the circuit court in a partition suit had become final against the plaintiffs, and one of the defendants had been declared the fee-simple owner of the land in question, a controversy arising between codefendants as to the validity of a deed of the premises executed pendente lite by the fee-simple owner to the other defendant, on a pleading in the nature of an equitable cross-bill, in which it was alleged that the deed had been procured by fraud, was within the jurisdiction of the circuit court, under Rev. St. 1899, § 4389, providing that, whenever it shall appear in partition that there are parties claiming the same portion adversely to each other, the court may direct the share or shares in controversy to be allotted, subject to the claims of the parties in controversy against each other.

2. Evidence in a proceeding to set aside a deed held sufficient to sustain allegations of fraudulent representation in procuring the deed, and to constitute a sufficient basis for the decree of the chancellor declaring the deed void.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Jas. H. Slover, Judge.

Action by Emma Snyder and others against William Arn and Menia Arn. After judgment final in favor of Menia Arn, declaring her the fee-simple owner of the premises, a controversy arose between the defendants as to the validity of a deed from Menia to William Arn; T. B. Wallace having been appointed guardian of Menia Arn in the meantime. From a decree in favor of the guardian, William Arn appeals. Affirmed.

Wilkinson & Wilkinson, for appellant. John G. Schaich, Jr., and Wallace & Wallace, for respondents.

GANTT, J.

In the year 1880 Cornelius Arn died, leaving an 80-acre farm in Jackson county, Mo. By his last will he devised all of his property, real and personal, to his wife, Menia Arn, "to have and to use for the benefit of herself and my children as hereinafter provided." The will contains but one other clause, which appoints Ferdinand Arn, a brother, "as executor of this my will and also guardian for my children, who shall hold, use, and control all of my property and effects as stated in this will." Six children—four daughters and two sons— survived the father. One son died before he became of age. After all the children had become of full age, the widow, Menia Arn, and the four daughters, brought suit for the partition of the 80 acres; making William Arn, the only son, defendant. The suit was brought on the theory that the mother, Menia Arn, and her children, by virtue of the will, became tenants in common. The suit was commenced in March, 1901. At that date William Arn, the son, was in possession of the farm, renting it from his mother. The mother lived in a house on the farm. After the suit was brought, Mrs. Menia Arn conveyed the land to Wm. Arn, her son, and thereafter was made a defendant, instead of plaintiff, in the partition. The plaintiffs thereupon filed an amended petition. On April 17, 1901, Menia Arn filed an answer alleging that by the will she took a fee-simple to said lands, and, since the filing of the suit, had conveyed all of her interest to her son William Arn, but the conveyance was obtained by fraud. William Arn, in his answer, claimed the entire land by deed from his mother. On the trial the evidence disclosed that the farm in dispute had been purchased with the proceeds of the sale of Mrs. Menia Arn's property in Ohio. The circuit court held that Mrs. Arn, under her husband's will, took a fee simple, and held that plaintiffs were not entitled to partition. From that finding and judgment, plaintiffs, the daughters, did not appeal, and thus the partition suit was finally decided; but the circuit court then proceeded to determine the validity of the deed from Menia Arn to her son William, and decreed that the deed was null and void, and that Mrs. Menia Arn had an absolute fee. From that decree William Arn appeals to this court.

As the main contention on this appeal is that the answer of defendant Menia Arn is insufficient to sustain the decree of the circuit court, it becomes necessary to reproduce it. It is as follows: "Comes now the defendant Menia Arn, and, leave of court having been first obtained to withdraw all answers heretofore filed by her in this cause, for her separate answer to plaintiffs' amended petition, says that defendant Menia Arn admits all of the allegations in plaintiffs' amended petition contained. Further answering, defendant says that heretofore, and on the 14th day of March, 1901, and prior to the commencement of this action, this defendant, by power of attorney, duly executed, did appoint John G. Schaich, Jr., her attorney in fact, to act for and to represent her in the matter of the partition of the property described in plaintiffs' petition; that thereafter, and on the 20th day of March, 1901, the above-entitled cause was filed in this court by the Hon. W. S. Teasdale and John G. Schaich, Jr., on behalf of Menia Arn, Emma Snyder, John Snyder, Maggie Hopkins, Landrum Hopkins, Flora Sells, George Sells, and Lydia Arn, plaintiffs, against William Arn, defendant, praying for the partition of the property described in plaintiffs' petition. That thereafter defendant William Arn procured Menia Arn's signature to a notice which was served on her said attorney in fact, notifying him that his authority to appear for her in said cause was thereby revoked, and further notifying him that she did not wish to continue as a plaintiff in said partition suit; that defendant's signature to said notice was procured by said William Arn by false and fraudulent representations on his part as to the contents, nature, and legal effect of said notice; that this defendant was not acquainted with the contents of said notice, and it was not her desire or intention that the authority given to her said attorney should be revoked, and it was not her desire or intention that her name be stricken from the docket as a party plaintiff in said partition suit, but defendant avers that she at all times desired the partition of said property as prayed for in plaintiffs' petition; that thereafter, and on the 9th day of April, 1901, a motion was filed in this court, before Honorable John W. Henry, asking the court to strike this defendant's name from the docket as party plaintiff; that said motion was by the court sustained, and this defendant's name was stricken from the docket as a party plaintiff, and she was, by order of the court, made a party defendant; that said motion was filed without authority given on this defendant's part, and without her knowledge and consent, and defendant's signature to said motion was procured by false and fraudulent representations made by the defendant William Arn as to the contents and legal effect of said motion; that this defendant has at all times been ready and willing that said property be partitioned according to law. Defendant, further answering, says that on the 6th day of April, 1901, defendant William Arn procured the signature of this defendant to the paper set up in William Arn's answer, and purporting to be a deed transferring her interests in said property described in plaintiff's petition to the defendant William Arn; that said signature to said paper was procured by false and fraudulent representations to this defendant on the part of said William Arn as to the contents, nature, and legal effect of said paper; that said William Arn, at the time of the signing of said paper by this defendant, represented to her that the paper signed was, in substance, a lease of the property described, during Menia Arn's lifetime, and that said William Arn was to support this defendant during her natural life; that by reason of said false representations this defendant was led to believe that the paper she signed was in the nature of a lease of said property, and did so believe until informed and advised by her counsel of the nature and legal effect of said paper; that said purported transfer of said property was wholly without consideration. Wherefore defendant Menia Arn prays the court that said so-called deed made by this defendant to William Arn be set aside and for naught held, and that this defendant be adjudged to be entitled to a one-sixth (1/6) interest in said property, and that said land described in plaintiff's petition be partitioned as therein prayed for."

To this pleading William Arn filed a supplemental answer in which he alleged the conveyance of said land by Menia Arn to himself on the 6th day of April, 1901, and that thereby he became the owner in fee of said lands. "And said defendant, for additional and supplemental answer to, and in response to, the separate answer of his co-defendant, Menia Arn, denies each and every allegation therein contained. And he especially...