Vordick v. Kirsch

• Citation: 216 S.W. 519
• Decision Date: 01 December 1919
• Docket Number: No. 20206.,20206.
• Parties: VORDICK v. KIRSCH et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

216 S.W. 519

VORDICK v. KIRSCH et al.

No. 20206.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

December 1, 1919.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; John W. McElhinney, Judge.

Action by Alinda B. Vordick against George L. Kirsch and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Action to cancel two deeds of trust and the notes secured thereby (aggregating $75,000) on the ground that they were made for the purpose of defrauding the plaintiff (respondent here) as the intended wife of August H. Vordick out of her dower and other marital rights as his wife. The action was brought by plaintiff, as the wife of August H. Vordick, against the said Vordick, as also against the trustee and beneficiary in the two respective deeds of trust, and also against the married daughter of Vordick, Augusta Linn.

Vordick, who was a physician in the city of St. Louis, with accumulated property of the value of over $75,000, was returning from a trip to the Orient in the spring of 1912 (according to his statement in a deposition taken), and whilst on the good ship Celtic he became acquainted with the plaintiff. He was born in March, 1849, and was then a widower of some 63 summers. According to his statements, in 1913 he renewed the acquaintance formed on the Celtic, by beginning a correspondence with plaintiff, then a, resident of the state of New York. In June,. 1913, he went to New York to press his suit,. but received no definite reply. The correspondence continued, and finally in the early part of August the parties were engaged to be married.

Shortly before he started for New York,. and on the 26th of August, 1913, he executed the two deeds of trust, and the two notes secured thereby. The trustee and beneficiary in each are the same. One covers two farms in St. Louis county and secures the $30,000 note, and the other covers two lots in the city of St. Louis and secures the $45,000. He" says that his daughter, Mrs. Linn, and the trustee and beneficiary, were all in an office with him, and he explained that he was thinking of getting married, and wanted to make these deeds of trust and notes so as toy protect the daughter, Mrs. Linn. Kirsch, the beneficiary in both deeds of trust and the payee in both notes, paid nothing. When the papers were duly executed, Kirsch immediately indorsed the notes, and Vordick handed them over to his daughter, Mrs. Linn, together with the deeds of trust securing them. Thinking the great bulk of his property was safe in the hands of his daughter, he shortly followed his wedding ring (sent the plaintiff upon the agreement to marry) to the state of New York, and there on September 11, 1913, married the plaintiff. Upon a trial, the chancellor nisi canceled the two deeds of trust and notes secured thereby, and enjoined Mrs. Linn from transferring said notes. From such judgment this appeal is taken.

Since the trial Dr. Vordick has died, and as we gathered from the argument, and from another case upon our docket, Mrs. Vordick (plaintiff here) had secured a divorce from him prior to his death. Further details will be left to the opinion.

Muench, Walther & Muench, of St. Louis,. for appellants.

Homer Hall, of St. Louis, for respondent.

GRAVES, J. (after stating the facts as above).

I. That Dr. Vordick, in contemplation of marriage with plaintiff, undertook to curtail the rights of his promised wife in his property, is too plain for argument. The record facts so speak. He was transferring at least eight-tenths of his property in anticipation of the marriage. This was a fraud upon the woman to whom he then was engaged. The daughter, the beneficiary of this fraud, together with the other defendants, were apprised of the facts when the conveyances were made. They knew that the conveyances were being made in anticipation of marriage to plaintiff. The conveyances were of such proportions that the parties were bound to know the fraudulent purposes of the grantor. The purpose was patent to one of common understanding. The grantor told them that he was contemplating marriage, and was making these conveyances in anticipation thereof. No other construction can be placed upon the facts in evidence. The acts of Dr. Vordick were in fraud of his prospective wife, and the other parties were apprised of the fraud, and knew it.

It is urged that a man engaged to be remarried may, prior to such remarriage, make conveyance of a" part of his property to a child of the first marriage, if acting in good faith. Cases are cited in support of this theory. We need not discuss them. The evidence in `this record does not show good faith, and the doctrine invoked needs no review. The proportion of the property conveyed by Dr. Vordick refutes the idea of good faith, and the doctrine which is invoked by learned counsel is not in the case. The record evidence shows a fraud on the intended wife, rather than a transaction, in good faith, to properly care for the daughter. Our courts are astute in the protection of dower as against frauds, whether such frauds are committed "in contemplation of marriage or during its...