Watt v. Loving

• Decision Date: 08 April 1922
• Docket Number: No. 22793.,22793.
• Citation: 240 S.W. 122
• Parties: WATT v. LOVING et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

240 S.W. 122

WATT v. LOVING et al.

No. 22793.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No.

April 8, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Miller County; J. G. Slate, Judge.

Action by John T. Watt, as an heir and administrator of the estate of Lydia Watt, deceased, against Lydia Loving and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Ira E. Lohman, of Jefferson City, Embry & Embry, of California, Mo., and H. L. Donnelly, of Tuscumbia, for appellant.

Barney Reed, of Linn Creek, Sid C. Roach, of Washington, D. C., and W. S. Stillwell, of Tuscumbia, for respondents.

GRAVES, J.

Action in equity to set aside a deed to 153.19 acres in Miller county. By the petition it is charged that the grantor in the deed was (1) mentally incapacitated to make a deed, and (2) that she was unduly influenced whilst in a weak mental state. Outstanding facts and pleadings can weld be stated together. The land in question had been willed to Lydia Watt, by her deceased husband, John Watt. She had been formerly married, and had by this first husband a son, L. T. Meador. By Watt she had four children, Joseph B. Watt, John T. Watt, Berry Watt, and Lydia (Watt) Loving. None of the Watt children were of age when the father died, and they lived with the mother until they married and moved to themselves. The son, L. T. Meador, continued to live with his mother on the farm. For years Mrs. Watt ran this farm, but during the latter years the land was rented and she and L. T. Meador lived in the house. Meador became an invalid. August 28, 1918, events began and rapidly transpired. Lydia Watt was then 78 years old. On this date two instruments were executed at her home, one the deed involved herein, and the other a contract between her and her children Joseph B. Watt and Lydia Loving. By the deed she conveyed all her land to Joseph B. Watt and Lydia Loving for the expressed consideration of "the sum of one dollar and other valuable considerations, and love and affection." By the contract Joseph B. Watt and Lydia Loving agreed to keep and care for both Lydia Watt, their mother, and L. T. Meador, their half-brother, as long as they lived, and at their death to give them a decent burial, and erect a monument over each of their graves. The expressed consideration for this keep and care (which included food, clothing, and medical service), was the conveyance of the land described in the deed.

In addition to the charges made in the petition above, it is further charged that there was a failure to perform this contract. This suit was brought by Lydia Watt, through her guardian John T. Watt, and it was tried in her lifetime, but pending the appeal here she died. Substitution of parties was duly made here. Shortly after the making of this deed Mrs. Loving and her husband moved upon the farm, and began the execution of the contract. In April, 1919, L. T. Meador died, and in July of the same year Lydia Watt went to the home of her son John T. Watt to live. It is said that she left the Loving home because she was made to do so, but this is denied. By answer and reply all issues were duly made.

October 31, 1919, on the information of John T. Watt, Lydia Watt was adjudged to be "a person of unsound mind and incapable of managing her own affairs" by the probate court of Miller county, and John T. Watt was appointed as her guardian. The present suit was filed in February, 1920, and tried in July, 1920, but taken under advisement until the December term, 1920, at which time there was a finding and judgment for the defendants, from which judgment the plaintiffs appealed. This outlines, in a general way, the case.

I. It is urged that there was a fiduciary relation between these two children and their mother, and for that reason they are called upon to show the fairness of this contract and deed. All of the children lived within two or three miles of the home place. Joseph B. lived quite close to the home farm. The most that the evidence shows is that she advised with all the children as to her business matters. If she had things to sell from the farm she either asked one or the other as to what they were worth. Joseph B., being closer, might have been called upon more than the others. There is no such state of facts shown as would indicate that either of the children was her business agent, or managed her affairs for her, so as to justify the application of the doctrine of a fiduciary relation. She may have been advised and assisted in the running of the farm by this son of the first marriage, but this does not appear in the evidence. Nor does his mental condition appear. That he was physically in very poor health does appear. Under all the facts it must be ruled that the record fails to disclose a fiduciary relationship, so that the case must be determined without the application of the rule in such cases. The real issue in the case is the one of mental Capacity. That she was feeble physically in August, 1918, is apparent from all the evidence. Her mental condition we take next.

II. That Mrs. Watt was overreached in this contract with her children is more than clear. The contract not only called for the farm, which the evidence places at $10,000, but for all the personal property of which she died seized. The record does not disclose the personal...