Stewart v. Miller
Decision Date | 26 February 1925 |
Docket Number | (No. 157.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Citation | 271 S.W. 311 |
Parties | STEWART et al. v. MILLER et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Hill County; Horton B. Porter, Judge.
Suit by Mrs. Lucile Stewart and others against Luther Miller and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded.
Stickley & Fitzhugh, of Memphis, Tenn., and Collins, Dupree & Crenshaw and Frazier & Averitte, all of Hillsboro, for appellants.
Atkins & Van Dyke, Dudley Porter, Lewis & Rhodes, and Bryant & Bryant, all of Paris, Tenn., Geo. A. Titterington, of Dallas, and Wear, Wood & Wear, of Hillsboro, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court refusing to set aside certain deeds. Appellants, Mrs. Lucile Stewart, joined by her husband, for herself and as guardian and next friend for her minor brothers and sisters, Joe Johnson, Wesley Johnson, Minnie Johnson, and Mary Johnson, were plaintiffs in the trial court and will be so designated and referred to here. Luther Miller, Mrs. Ethel Simmons, a widow, Mrs. Merle Oliver, and Miss Ruth Miller were defendants in the trial court and will be so designated and referred to here. Dr. A. A. Oliver, the husband of Mrs. Merle Oliver, was joined as defendant. The John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company was also joined as a defendant, plaintiffs alleging that said company held a mortgage on a tract of land covered by one of the deeds involved in this suit. The case was tried before a jury. The court instructed a verdict for the defendants, and upon the return of such verdict rendered the judgment here presented for review. The facts will be set out in connection with each separate issue discussed.
Plaintiffs contended that the court erred in instructing a verdict for defendants. They base this contention upon their claim that Mrs. Minerva A. Miller, one of the grantors in said deeds and the owner in her own separate right of the property conveyed thereby, was at the time of the execution of the same mentally incapable of understanding the nature and effect of her act in so executing the same.
Mrs. Minerva Miller and Sam & Miller were husband and wife and the parents of defendants and grandparents of the plaintiffs in this case. They also had an adult son named Cooper Miller, and an older married daughter named Emma Daniels. Mrs. Miller at the time of the execution of said deeds resided with her husband and family in the state of Tennessee. The grantees in said deeds, respectively, were her four youngest children. Plaintiffs were the children of an older daughter, then deceased. The property conveyed by said deeds was, so far as shown, the only property owned by Mrs. Miller in her own right. Each of said deeds recited love and affection as the sole consideration therefor, and retained a life estate in the land conveyed thereby in Mr. and Mrs. Miller and conveyed the remainder only in fee to the respective grantees therein. Prior to the execution of said deeds, the oldest son, Cooper Miller, had received substantial gifts or advances from his father. None of the same, however, were shown to have come from the estate of his mother. Shortly after Mrs. Daniels learned of the execution and delivery of said deeds, she complained to her mother and father of the fact that neither she nor plaintiffs had received any part in the distribution of said land. Subsequently, she received a settlement satisfactory to her; but whether out of the estate of her father, or mother, or both, is not shown. Plaintiffs had not then and never did receive anything from Mrs. Miller's separate property or estate. Mrs. Johnson, the mother of plaintiffs, seems to have separated from her husband and returned to the parental roof with her children some six or eight years prior to the execution of said deeds. She and her children were received, supported, and loved as other members of the family. She and the children as they grew up assisted in the duties of the home, and when the boys became old enough to do so they assisted in work on the farm. All of the children were sent to school and seemed to have been furnished ordinary opportunities for acquiring an education. Their mother, Mrs. Johnson, died about three years before the execution of said deeds. Mrs. Oliver and Miss Ruth Miller, two of the defendants, seem to have been in constant attendance upon their mother until her death. Miss Ruth especially ministered to her mother in her affliction with tenderness and self-sacrificing devotion. The statement of facts contains nothing showing any ill will or unkind feeling on the part of either Mr. or Mrs. Miller toward plaintiffs or their mother.
The four deeds involved herein effected partition and distribution of the said tract of land among the respective grantees therein. Said tract of land contained 640 acres and was situated in Hill county, Tex. The said deeds were all prepared at the same time and executed and delivered at the same time. Mr. Miller had the land surveyed into said four parcels, had the deeds prepared, and had a notary go to his home for the purpose of taking the acknowledgment of Mrs. Miller. Said deeds are dated and purport to have been acknowledged on January 1, 1918. There is testimony to the effect that said deeds, though not at the time formally executed, were delivered to the respective grantees by Mr. Miller, in the presence of his wife, on Christmas Day, 1917. The statement of facts contains approximately 150 pages. The major portion of the same bears directly on the physical and mental condition of Mrs. Miller. Such testimony covers a period of from 10 to 15 years. The time of the occurrence of most of the incidents recited in said testimony, and of the observations of Mrs. Miller detailed therein, is very vaguely stated. Generally, the evidence tends to show a progressive decline in Mrs. Miller's condition, which continued until her death in the spring of 1920. In deference to the rule of law laid down in the authorities hereinafter cited, we will recite the evidence bearing on Mrs. Miller's physical and mental condition in its most favorable aspect for plaintiffs, ignoring all conflicts and contradictions. Eastham v. Hunter, 98 Tex. 560, 565, 86 S. W. 323.
The age of Mrs. Miller at the date of said deeds is not shown. She was, however, an elderly woman. She had borne thirteen children, seven of whom were dead at that time. Her oldest child was then about 47 years of age. We have prepared abridged statements of the substance of some of the testimony most favorable to plaintiffs' contention.
Mrs. Daniels, daughter of Mrs. Miller, testified, in part, substantially as follows:
Miss Daniels, daughter of Mrs. Emma Daniels, testified, in part, substantially as follows:
Mrs. Cozatt, a sister of the father of plaintiffs, testified, in part, substantially as follows:
Dr. Woods testified, in part, substantially as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Williams & Chastain v. Laird, 948.
...consider the evidence in its most favorable aspect for the opposite party, disregarding all evidence to the contrary. Stewart v. Miller (Tex. Civ. App.) 271 S. W. 311, 315, par. 4 (writ refused), and authorities there cited; Richardson v. W. C. Bowman Lumber Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 274 S. W. 3......
-
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Presley
...Exchange Nat. Bank v. Keeley, Tex.Civ.App., 39 S.W.2d 929; Humble O. & R. Co. v. Andrews, Tex.Civ.App., 285 S.W. 894; Stewart v. Miller, Tex.Civ.App., 271 S.W. 311; Universal Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, Tex.Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d The same proposition is impliedly, if not expressly, suppo......
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Gibson, 1910.
...evidence in this case on this issue. Appellant's contention is overruled. Connor v. Crain (Tex.Civ.App.) 289 S.W. 712; Stewart v. Miller (Tex.Civ.App.) 271 S.W. 311; Kifuri v. Lira (Tex.Civ.App.) 73 S. W.2d 891; Eastham v. Hunter, 98 Tex. 560, 86 S.W. 323; Progressive Lbr. Co. v. Marshall &......
-
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Coffman
...Canode, 106 Tex. 502, 507, 171 S. W. 696; Burroughs v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.) 294 S. W. 948, 950-952 (writ refused); Stewart v. Miller (Tex. Civ. App.) 271 S. W. 311, 315 (writ refused); Commerce Farm Credit Co. v. Torrance (Tex. Civ. App.) 7 S.W.(2d) 1110, 1111; Drane v. Humble Oil & Refin......