Stillwell v. Bell

• Decision Date: 28 February 1913
• Citation: 154 S.W. 85,248 Mo. 61
• Parties: STILLWELL v. BELL.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

154 S.W. 85

248 Mo. 61

STILLWELL v. BELL.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

February 28, 1913.

1. TRIAL (§ 373)—EQUITY CAUSE—INSTRUCTIONS —NECESSITY.

Instructions have no place in proceedings in equity, and hence the refusal to give requested instructions bearing only on a count in equity was not error.

2. EQUITY (§ 65)—MAXIMS—UNCLEAN HANDS.

Where a husband conveyed land by deed in which his wife joined intending to defraud the wife by obtaining a divorce and then procuring a reconveyance, equity would not compel a reconveyance, since the husband did not come into court with clean hands.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Ozark County; John T. Moore, Judge.

Action by John M. Stillwell against Owen Bell. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

A. H. Buchanan, of Ava, for appellant. G. W. Boone, of Gainesville, G. W. Thornberry, of Galena, and T. J. Luna, of Gainesville, for respondent.

BLAIR, C.

This is an appeal from a judgment for defendant in the circuit court of Ozark county in a suit to cancel a deed and for possession of 120 acres of land. In 1900 plaintiff and his wife executed a general warranty deed by which they conveyed to defendant the land in question for a recited consideration of $150. Plaintiff's testimony was to the effect that he acquired the land in 1894, and some time thereafter was arrested on the charge of seducing Dorcas Royal, and while under arrest married her to avoid prosecution, and, though his wife disclosed to him her father was responsible for her condition, he lived with her for some five months. Plaintiff testified that the deed to defendant was made pursuant to a suggestion by the latter that the only way for plaintiff to keep the land was to convey it to some friend, get a divorce, and then have the land reconveyed. With this in view, plaintiff says he made the deed to defendant; the latter agreeing to reconvey when plaintiff "was free" and requested a reconveyance. Plaintiff had resumed his marital relation and was living with his wife when the deed to defendant was executed, and she joined in the deed. Thereafter the pair moved to Arkansas and lived together as man and wife. Finally the wife secured a divorce. According to plaintiff, the deed to defendant was made for the express purpose of excluding the wife from any interest in the land, was without consideration, and made with the agreement mentioned as to reconveyance after divorce. He admitted receiving $50 of the purchase price, but declared this a sham payment made to give color to the transaction, and that he returned the money to defendant. There was some evidence defendant had said he had as much right to "beat John out of the land as John had to beat his wife out of it." Other evidence as to the neighborhood talk and rumors and ex parte declarations of pl...