Wall v. Wall
| Decision Date | 04 January 1937 |
| Docket Number | 32479 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | WALL et al. v. WALL et ux |
1. REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENTS. Evidence held insufficient to sustain decree reforming deed to conform to alleged agreement that grantors were to live on land conveyed during their lives and that grantee would pay taxes thereon and furnish necessities to grantors, if unable to support themselves on such property.
The evidence did not show that the deed was not read and understood by grantors when signed, parties' correspondence showed that one grantor rented land from grantee with knowledge of latter's assertion of title under deed, and there was no proof that parties intended to make deed in accordance with prayer of hill.
2. REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENTS.
To reform deed so as to constitute deed intended to be executed proof must show that mistake was mutual and should clearly show parties' real agreement and understanding.
3 CONTRACTS.
Contract executed by one party under mistake or in ignorance of matters which would have prevented its execution, if known, may be rescinded and parties placed in statu quo ante.
4. DEEDS.
Party alleging fraud or undue influence in procuring deed has burden of proving it.
5. DEEDS.
Adult persons of sound mind, who have not been overreached, must abide consequences of their deliberate' acts in executing deeds.
6. DEEDS.
One claiming that deed is invalid because of confidential or fiduciary relations between parties must establish such relations.
7. DEEDS.
Presumption of fraud or undue influence invalidating deed does not arise because of blood relationship accompanied by affection between parties.
8. DEEDS.
"Fiduciary relation" invalidating deed is one giving rise to same remedy against wrongdoer on principal's behalf as would exist against trustee on behalf of cestui que trust.
9. DEEDS.
Spouses' deed to husband's son and latter's wife held not invalid on ground of fiduciary relation between father and son, where evidence showed that son was under his wife's influence and no act by son inconsistent with terms of deed at time of its execution was established, nor anything from which undue influence, duress, or fraud could be inferred.
10. EQUITY.
Mistake, to constitute ground for equitable relief, must not be merely result of inattention, personal negligence, or misconduct of party applying for relief.
HON. BKN STEVENS, Chancellor.
APPEAL from the chancery court of Covington county HON. BEN STEVENS, Chancellor.
Suit by F. N. Wall and wife against Mrs. Lula B. Wall and husband. Decree for complainants, and respondents appeal. Reversed and bill dismissed.
Reversed and bill dismissed.
McIntosh & McIntosh, of Collins, for appellants.
It is respectfully urged that the appellees' testimony in the case below did not establish fiduciary relations between the father and son, and consequently the presumption of fraud did not arise.
Creswell v. Creswell, 164 Miss 871, 144 So. 41; 18 C. J. 424, sec. 503.
It became the appellees' duty to introduce affirmative proof reflecting the particular acts and circumstances, other than kindred, that created fiduciary relations in this case, and we most respectfully insist that the record will not sustain the presumption.
It is deemed unnecessary to insist, that the record establishes actual fraud beyond almost every reasonable hypothesis, which, of course, is the general well recognized rule of law in this state. As the Creswell case, supra, points out that the only question to be considered, in cases of this nature, is whether or not the presumption of fraud arises as the record fails to develop any facts or circumstances that would intimate that appellant or her husband were either in a position to exert undue influence over appellees because of prior business transaction or for any other reason except blood relationship of father and son, which of course is sufficient.
Soper v. Cisco, 85 N.J.Eq. 165, Ann. Cas. 1918, page 452.
Currie & Currie, of Hattiesburg, for appellees.
It is respectfully submitted that, under the undisputed facts of this case, there can be no doubt but that a fiduciary relationship existed between the grantors, F. N. Wall and Mrs. Martha Wall, and the grantees, Roy Wall and Lula B. Wall, the appellees and appellant, respectively. It therefore follows that the purported conveyance from F. N. Wall and Martha Wall to their son and step-son and daughter-in-law was and is presumed to be fraudulent and void.
With the presumption of fraud firmly established, the burden was upon Roy Wall and Lula B. Wall to overcome it. Roy Wall not only refused to dispute, under oath, the averments of his aged father and step-mother, but he filed a disclaimer, and failed to appear in court, upon the trial, either as a litigant or as a witness. Lula B. Wall made no more than a feeble effort to overturn the presumption of fraud. The learned chancellor was manifestly correct in deciding the issue against her.
In order to overcome the presumption of fraud, established by the existence of the fiduciary relation which was shown to exist, the grantee, Lula B. Wall (the grantee, Roy Wall, is not undertaking to uphold the conveyance), would have to show that the grantors had and acted upon the advice of a competent person, disconnected from the grantee and devoted wholly to the grantor's interest.
Argued orally by H. M. McIntosh, for appellant, and by E. J. Currie, for appellee.
Appellee F. N. Wall, formerly the owner of certain property in Covington county, and his wife, Mrs. Martha Wall, executed a trust deed thereon to the Federal Land Bank to secure a loan from said bank. The payments were divided into annual installments, and appellees appear to have made some payments on the debt, but after the 1928 payment, they seem to have been unable to meet the payments. Roy Wall, son of F. N. Wall, and stepson of Mrs. Martha Wall, advanced the money to pay the installments due in 1929, 1930, and 1931. The said F. N. Wall was unable to meet the 1932 payment, and called upon Roy Wall for help, and, on June 7, 1932, he appeared at the home of his father and stepmother with his wife, Mrs. Lula B. Wall. It was then desired that the son Roy Wall, be secured, in some manner, for advances formerly made and to be made. Some discussion took place with a banker at Hattiesburg, who advised against the giving of a second mortgage, and it was arranged that F. N. Wall and his wife execute a deed to the lands in question to Roy Wall, which was done; the deed was read to the parties, and Lula B. Wall objected and refused to accept same. Thereupon, some one in the chancery...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delta Cotton Oil Co. v. Lovelace
...Co. v. Joseph, 140 Miss. 582; Gunter v. Henderson Molpus Co., 149 Miss. 603; Fornea v. Goodyear Yellow Pine Co., 181 Miss. 50; Wall v. Wall, 177 Miss. 743; Caulk v. 112 Miss. 660; Prestridge v. Lazar, 132 Miss. 168; Robinson v. Sullivan, 102 Miss. 581; Fed. Land Bank v. Miles, 169 Miss. 43;......
-
Lindeman's Estate v. Herbert
...163 Miss. 71, 140 So. 518; Brooks v. Brooks, 145 Miss. 845, 111 So. 376; Watkins v. Martin, 147 So. 652, 167 Miss. 343; Wall v. Wall, 177 Miss. 743, 171 So. 676; Ford v. Byrd, 184 So. 443, 183 Miss. If the gift was initially invalid, then it was ratified. Falconer v. Holland, 5 S. & M. 689,......
-
Highlands Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...of that party's inattention or negligence. Hunt v. Davis, 208 Miss. 710, 724, 45 So.2d 350, 352 (1950) (quoting Wall v. Wall, 177 Miss. 743, 748, 171 So. 675, 677 (1937)); Sacred Heart S. Missions, Inc. v. Terminix Int'l, Inc., 479 F.Supp. 348, 350-51 (N.D.Miss.1979). This rule, however, is......
-
Nubby v. Scott
...alleged conveyance from appellees, Lonie Scott and Marshall Scott, was invalid and canceling the same. Moore v. Vick, 2 How. 746; Wall v. Wall, 177 Miss. 743; Brown v. Wesson, 114 Miss. 216; Seleck Compress Co., 72 Miss. 1019; Dunbar v. Newman, 46 Miss. 231; Simmons v. North, 11 Miss. 67; 2......