Wells v. Houston

• Decision Date: 02 May 1900
• Citation: 57 S.W. 584
• Parties: WELLS et al. v. HOUSTON.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

57 S.W. 584

WELLS et al. v.HOUSTON.¹

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

May 2, 1900.

Appeal from district court, Gonzales county; M. Kennon, Judge.

Bill by J. M. Houston against C. M. Wells and others to set aside and cancel a deed and mortgage.From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal.Reversed.

Harwood & Walsh and Burgess & Hopkins, for appellants.Stewart, Lewis & Gordon, Atkinson & Abernethy, and McNeal & Jones, for appellee.

NEILL, J.

This suit was brought by J. M. Houston against C. M. Wells, J. B. Wells, and H. L. Kokernot to cancel the deed made by plaintiff to C. M. Wells, hereinafter described, and also to cancel a deed of trust, made by plaintiff to Ben N. Peck, trustee, to secure defendantH. L. Kokernot in payment of a certain sum of money.As grounds for the cancellation of the instruments the allegations in plaintiff's petition are substantially: That the consideration recited in the deed from J. M. Houston to C. M. Wells was an undivided one-half interest in 200 head of cattle, and the transfer of the possessory rights of C. M. Wells to plaintiff in an undivided one-half interest in what is known as the "Windmill Pasture," containing 8,000 acres, in Guadalupe county; that the value of the 100 head of cattle and of the possessory rights of C. M. Wells to one-half of the pasture was not more than $1,700, although it was represented by said Wells to plaintiff to be of the reasonable value of $5,000, and that he(Wells) would convey such interest to plaintiff in part consideration for the latter's interest in his deceased father's estate; that C. M. Wells represented to plaintiff, as an inducement to make the trade, that he(Wells) owned an undivided one-half interest in said pasture, and not a mere possessory right thereto, and in fact he did not own such interest; that when plaintiff executed said deed he believed, and was caused by the representation of C. M. Wells to believe, that he was getting in value $5,000, when in fact he was getting only $1,700 worth of property; that all of said facts were known to C. M. Wells, and concealed from plaintiff by him for the purpose of defrauding plaintiff out of his inheritance in his father's estate, and his expectant interest in the estates of his mother, brothers, and sisters; that at the time plaintiff executed the deed to C. M. Wellshe was, and had for some years prior thereto been, addicted to the excessive use of intoxicating liquors, which incapacitated him from forming a correct judgment, or understanding business transactions; that when he executed the deed he was, and had been for some days prior thereto, drinking heavily of intoxicants, and was not in sound mental condition, and by reason thereof did not know the effect of said instruments; that he never intended to convey to Wells anything except his interest in his father's estate, and especially did he not intend to convey his interest in the estate of his mother, and possible interest in the estate of either one of his brothers or sisters, and did not know that he was so doing or had done so; that at the time he was in debt, pressed by his creditors, and in actual or imagined need of money, which facts C. M. Wells knew, and took advantage of plaintiff's mental and financial condition, worked upon his credulity, and caused him to believe that he was making a good bargain, and getting the value of the property conveyed, when in fact the amount received by plaintiff was grossly inadequate, which fact was fully known to C. M. Wells.After these allegations, the petition charges on information and belief that C. M. Wells, in fraudulently causing plaintiff to convey his property, as alleged, for an inadequate consideration, was acting in concert and collusion with J. B. Wells, and under his advice and guidance; that J. B. Wells is the father of C. M. Wells, is a man of mature years, skilled and experienced in business affairs, was intimately acquainted with plaintiff's father, his business, condition, and value of his estate, and knew at the date of said transfer to C. M. Wells that plaintiff's interest in said estate was worth not less than $25,000, and that his interest in the other property conveyed was of value not less than $10,000; that J. B. Wells conspired with C. M. Wells to defraud plaintiff of his said property; that there had been the closest relation of friendship and confidence existing between plaintiff's father and J. B. Wells, continuing up to the time of the former's death; that prior to and at the time of the death of R. A. Houston, plaintiff's father, he and J. B. Wells had been and were partners in various business undertakings; that when said transfer was made by plaintiff to C. M. Wells there existed intimate business and friendly relations between J. B. Wells and J. D. Houston, plaintiff's guardian, and executor of his father's will; that plaintiff and C. M. Wells have been intimately associated together since boyhood, and the latter had always professed the greatest friendship for plaintiff, as had J. B. Wells, and that plaintiff entertained feelings of sincere friendship for both of them, and had entire confidence in the friendship professed by them for him; that, relying on their supposed friendship, and because of his respect and confidence in them, plaintiff entered into said contract with C. M. Wells, and executed the aforesaid deeds; that plaintiff was not then 23 years old, and was inexperienced in business, ignorant of the value of his interest in his father's estate and of the other interest conveyed by said deed, and of the fact that he had any reversionary or other interest in the estate of his mother or estates of his brothers and sisters, and he was influenced in the execution of said deed by his confidence in C. M. Wells and his father, and accepted as true the representations made to him by C. M. Wells in the transaction; that, as an inducement for plaintiff to contract with him, C. M. Wells represented that J. B. Wells approved the transaction, and had authorized plaintiff to make said contract, and had given him the cattle and one-half interest in said pasture to the end that he might make said contract, and go into partnership with plaintiff in the stock business; that the formation of such partnership was the purpose and inducement of the trade between plaintiff and C. M. Wells, who urged the formation of such partnership as an inducement thereto; that H. L. Kokernot took the deed of trust made by C. M. Wells to secure him with full notice, actual and constructive, of the facts pleaded, and especially of the facts that the estate of R. A. Houston was a large and valuable one, and that plaintiff's interest therein so conveyed to C. M. Wells was of the value of $25.000, and knew when he took said mortgage that the consideration for the deed from plaintiff to C. M. Wells was inadequate, and the conveyance fraudulent.In his petition plaintiff offered to refund to C. M. Wells the amount received in consideration for the property conveyed.It concludes with a prayer for cancellation of both instruments, and asks, in the event cancellation of the deed of trust should be denied, that he be subrogated to the rights of H. L. Kokernot therein, upon paying or securing him in the payment of the amount of money it was executed to secure, and that he have judgment against C. M. Wells and J. B. Wells for any such amount as may be required to pay or secure H. L. Kokernot.By his answer C.M. Wells admitted the execution of the deed sought to be canceled, but denied all the allegations pleaded by plaintiff for its rescission.His answer contained special pleas setting up certain matters as ratification and acquiescence hereinafter recited in our statement of the undisputed facts.J. B. Wells answered by a special exception to that part of the petition wherein judgment is asked against him in the event the court should decline to vacate the deed of trust from C. M. Wells to H. L. Kokernot.His answer contains also a general denial and a special denial of the allegation that he acted in concert and collusion with C. M. Wells, or any one else, to defraud plaintiff of his property.Kokernot, in his answer, admitted the execution of the deed of trust sought to be canceled, and alleged that it was taken by him in good faith to secure a valid and existing debt evidenced and created by and at the time said deed of trust was executed, and that, when the indebtedness it was intended to secure was created, he had no knowledge of or cause to believe that any fraud, mistake, or overreaching had been practiced in procuring the execution of the deed from plaintiff to C. M. Wells; that he was ignorant of any of the facts alleged by plaintiff for the rescission of said deed, and that he acted in the usual course of business and upon the records of Gonzales and Dewitt counties, in which said deed was recorded, and in which counties the principal part of the lands conveyed were situated.By a supplemental petition, the plaintiff, in reply to the matters pleaded by C. M. Wells in ratification and acquiescence, alleged that such transactions were in continuation of the purpose on the part of C. M. Wells and of the conspiracy between him and his father to defraud plaintiff; that the relation of confidence and trust existing between plaintiff and both said defendants, the situation of necessity upon which plaintiff was, or imagined he was, the purpose of C. M. Wells to defraud him out of his property, and every fact and circumstance alleged in plaintiff's original petition with reference to the transfer by plaintiff to C. M. Wells of the interest he had in his father's estate, existed, and were applicable to the transaction pleaded in ratification of said conveyance.The special exception of J. B. Wells to plaintiffs' petition was overruled.The case was tried before a jury, and the trial resulted in a verdict in favor of J. M. Houston against all defendants.But...