Turner v. Turner

• Decision Date: 31 October 1869
• Citation: 44 Mo. 535
• Parties: GEORGE W. TURNER, Appellant, v. TERESA TURNER, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

44 Mo. 535

GEORGE W. TURNER, Appellant,

v.TERESA TURNER, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1869.

Appeal from Fourth District Court.

The facts appear in the opinion of the court.

James M. De France, with Ewing & Holliday, for appellant.

I. The defendant acquired the title to her property by “actual fraud, arising from plain facts and circumstances of imposition.” (Chesterfield v. Jansen, 2 Ves., Sr. 155.) “Fraud or covin may, in judgment of law, avoid every kind of act.” (Bright, Ex'r, v. Eynon, 1 Burr. 390--see p. 395, at bottom--citing Fermon's case, 3 Co. 77.)

II. Courts of chancery have an undoubted jurisdiction to relieve against every species of fraud. (1 Hovenden, 17.) Where a father obtains an absolute conveyance from a daughter, in order to answer one particular purpose, and afterwards makes use of it for another, a court of chancery will relieve under the head of fraud. (Young v. Peachy, 2 Atk. 254; Picket v. Loggon, 14 Ves. 234; 2 Hovenden on Fraud, 108.)

III. Fraud and mistake vitiate and avoid a conveyance, without regard to the source whence they originate, or the effect which they produce. (3 White & Tudor's Lead. Cas. in Eq. 124.)

IV. It is thoroughly settled that when undue influence has been used, or a fraud actually committed, equity will not stop short with the guilty party, but will grant relief against every one who attempts to sustain the wrong, or profit by it, however innocent he may have been in the first instance. (3 White & Tudor's Lead. Cas. in Eq. 151-2; 11 Wheaton, 103.) Whenever a conveyance has been obtained by a suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, it may be altogether avoided. (2 Hoven. on Fraud, 105.)

V. If the wife elope, a chancery court will not assist her in recovering her own property, which had been settled to her separate use. (Lee v. Lee, 1 Dick. 321; same case, 2 Dick. 806; Clark v. Lott, 11 Ill. 105; Moore v. Moore, 2 Atk. 272; Ayer v. Ayer, 16 Pick. 327.)

Ellison & Ellison, for respondent.

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a petition in the nature of a bill in equity, seeking relief from a conveyance made at plaintiff's instance and request to defendant, and asking that the title to certain property therein conveyed be divested from the defendant and restored to the plaintiff. The petition states that the plaintiff and defendant were legally married, and were living together as man and wife, when the plaintiff purchased of W. P. Linder and paid for two several lots of ground in Linder's addition to the town of Kirksville, in Adair county; that defendant begged and importuned plaintiff to have the deed to the property made to her, and that in consequence of her importunities he was finally prevailed upon to do so to gratify her; that at the time he had the utmost confidence in her love, fidelity, and chastity, and that she also persuaded and encouraged him to improve the property and expend his means thereon; that he did lay out and expend all his means in building a house and making permanent improvements on the lots, and, as soon as that was accomplished, defendant abandoned the plaintiff. The petition further avers that the defendant before, and at the time and after Linder made the deed to her, was clandestinely, and secretly, and wholly unknown to the plaintiff, committing adultery with one Leonard Johnson and one George Rice, and others whose names are not known; that before and at the time said deed was made to her, she was in collusion with said Linder and her adulterers, who were aiding and assisting her in her attempt to overreach, cheat, and defraud plaintiff out of his property, intending wrongfully and through fraud to obtain title to said real estate, and induce plaintiff to expend all his means on the same, and, as soon as that was accomplished, to abandon him and live in adultery with Rice and Johnson; that the title to the property was acquired by the defendant willfully and designedly, through fraud and deceit; that she subsequently eloped with Johnson, and is now living in adultery with him, and that plaintiff has been divorced from her by decree of court. The Circuit Court sustained a demurrer to this petition, and rendered judgment thereon for the defendant, which judgment was affirmed in the District Court. The petition alleges a state of facts which, if true, shows that the plaintiff has been made the victim of one of the grossest outrages which it is possible for the human mind to conceive of--a deliberate attempt by a faithless wife, in conjunction with her guilty confederates, not only to rob her husband of his peace, and dishonor him, but also to wrest from him all his property. Not satisfied with turning him out in the world smarting under the stings of a most heinous and grievous wrong, they proceed further in their iniquitous career and reduce him to beggary. A conveyance obtained without sufficient consideration by a person resorting to undue influences, or practising fraud or deception, will generally be set aside. Fraud and mistake vitiate and avoid a conveyance, without regard to the sources whence they originate or the effect which they produce. But, in order to avoid a grant on the ground of undue influence, it must be shown that the influence existed and was exercised for an undue and disadvantageous...