
    DOGGET et al, vs. LANE et al.
    
    
      1. The facts that a vendor was a man afflicted with chronic disease, and the purchaser was his family physician, will not warrant an inference of fraud, especially when there are no attending circumstances to corroborate such an inference,
    2. After a chancery cause is fully submitted upon hearing, it is discretionary with the chancellor either to dismiss the hill without prejudice, or render a final decree. When this discretion has been soundly exercised by the chancellor, his action will not be disturbed by the supreme court.
    APPEAL PROM ST. LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT.
    STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
    This was a suit in chancery instituted by the appellants who are the widow and heirs of John Doggett deceased, against the appellees, to set aside a conveyance alleged to have been made by the said John Doggett in his lifetime, to the defendant Lane, of a tract of land in St. Louis county, containing 672 arpens. The deed bears date 1st day of June, 1829, and wás ■acknowledged on the same day before Jos. C. Brown, a justice of the peace, and subsequently recorded. The consideration expressed in the deed is ©350,'the bill alleges that at the date ■-of this deed John Doggett, the grantor, was greatly reduced by disease, insomuch that his ■.mind was greatly impaired, if not entire!}- 'gone ; that he had ¡been for some time before that •date suffeiing from protracted sickness, which continued gradually to grow worse until he finally died of it in 1831. That from the time of his first attack, which was prior to June, 1829, (the date of the deed) his mind and body were both so much impaired as to wholly disqualify'him from managing h'is business with care and prudence, and that the disease which was paralysis, was of a nature which necessarily impaired his mental faculties, and ultimately rendered him entirely imbecile. That'during the whole of this period the defendant Lahe was his family physician, and availing himself of the said Doggett’s enfeebled condition and of 'his (Lane’s) influence over him, and whilst Doggett was thus prostrate with disease, both bodily and mental, prevailed upon Doggett to execute the ’deed aforesaid. That the three hundred and fifty dollars named as the consideration, was in fact never paid by Lane, except so far as his bill for medical attendance went. That he paid nothing except in tire way of ■medical services, and they did not amount to ©350. That the land was then very Valuable and worth at least ten times as much as Lane professes to have paid for it. That the deed was therefore fraudulent and obtained by undue influence, and for a merely nominal consideration The bill also sets out Dogget’s title to 350 arpens of the tract and'describes the land particularly. One hundred acres of tho tract was conveyed by Wm. Massie, who claimed under Samuel and Amos Duncan, the confirmees to David Barton, and by the latter to said Doggett; the said Wm. Massie having died, Chas. S. Hempstead, adrn’r of Christian Wilt ob2-tained a judgment against the adm’rs of said Massie, upon which an execution issued in thé year 1824, which was levied upon 2-19 arpens, part of the said tract of 672 arpens, and at a sale of the same by the sheriff under said execution, the said Doggett became the purchaser of the said 249 arpens, which was accordingly conveyed to him by the sheriff. In this way Doggett acquired title to the 1'00 acres purchased of Barton and the 248 arpens purchased at sheriff’s sale.
    The bill further states that as to the remainder of the tract of 672 arpens the complainants are not advised how Doggett acquired title, but that for many years before his death he was in the quiet possession and enjoyment of it, and that after his death up to the time of bringing this suit his widow and children had continued to reside upon and occupy the land, claiming it under the said Doggett. who, in his lifetime, claimed to own the tract, and the complainants have no doubt lie had a valid title thereto. They call upon Lane to answer as to thé 'condition of Doggett’s health, mental and bodily, at the date of the deed, and to state what consideration he paid and how and when he paid it, and pray that the conveyance be set aside as fraudulent.
    An amended bill was afterwards filed charging in substance that the defendant, Ewing) now claimed to be the owner of all the interest acquired by Lane under the deed from Doggett, and that Lane disclaimed all further interest in the property. But that Ewing’s title, if he had any, was only colorable. That he was in fact holding in secret trust for Lane, who was the real owner, and that if Ewing had in fact purchased from Lane, he purchased with notice of the fraudulent manner in which the deed Was obtained and stood in no better position than Lane himself.
    Ewing in his answer denies all knowledge of the manner in which the deed from Doggett to Lane was obtained and all notice of any fraud in obtaining the same, but believes it was fairly obtained. Denies also Doggett’s insanity or imbecility, and claims that dil 21st Nov.) 1842, he (Ewing) purchased at sheriff’s sale under execution against Lane all his right and title to the said tract at the price of $10, and received a deed from the sheriff therefor. That in order to perfect his title to said tract and other property he had previously obtained control of the judgments under which the said tract was sold, forwhich judgments he paid ovef $2000. That he has also purchased a conflicting claim of one Jno. B. Raney to a portion of said tract for which he paid $240. That on 1st Dec., 1843 the said tract was also sold for taxes, at which he Ewing, bought it. Denies also that he holds in trust for Lane, but claims that he purchased on liis own account, and with his own funds, and tliat Lane has no interest in it.
    Lane in his answer admits that Doggett was in possession of a pait of thh tract of 672 arpens in his lifetime, but not of the whole tract, and denies that Doggett eyer claimed to own the whole tract. That his title Was exceedingly defective as to any part of the tract exeepthe 100 acres bought of Barton, That in Dec., 1827, Doggett proposed to sell him his inte* rest in the tract for $350. That he, Lane, took time to consider of it. and in March of the next year, concluded to accede to the offer, and so informed Doggett, when the trade was agreed upon- That between that day and the 1st June following, he made payments to Doggett, and assumed debts for him to the whole amount agreed to be paid, on which day the purchase money being thus fully paid, a deed was executed by Doggett and wife. On the said 1st June, the payments he alleges were made as follows: Five dollars cash on 6th March, the day the bargain was closed. On same day executed his note to Doggett for $100, payable twelve months after date, which was paid at maturity. $52 agreed to be due for medical services. On 28th May, 1829, paid Doggett one hundred dollars cash and gave him at same time an order on Hough for ten dollars. The balance was paid in debts assumed for Doggett to N. W. Whistler and others. Denies Toggeti’s insanity or imbecility at date of the deed, or at any other time so far as he knows or believes, except for a few hours at a time, during periods of severe illness. Denies all fraud or imposition, on the contrary, insists that at the date of the purchase Doggett was perfectly sane and rational, and the purchase was made at his urgent request. That the complainant, Nancy, his widow, was present at the time, knew his condition and voluntarily signed the deed and relinquished her dower. That since that time said Nancy has often received favors and professional advice from him and has never complained of any unfairness. Says there were several conflicting claims to said land, and that Doggett’s title was not worth three hundred and fifty dollars at the time. Sets out several conflicting claims which he has since purchased to said land, for which he paid 2,090 dollars, including what has been since paid by Ewing, all of which claims he say3 were known to Doggett and himself at the date of the said deed. Admits that after the purchase from Doggett he permitted Doggett to occupy a portion of the tract up to the time of his death, and after that as his family were poor, he permitted his widow and children to reside there, always, however, as tenants at will. Denies that he has now any interest in the tract, but that the same was sold to Ewing under execution as stated in Ewing’s answer, and that Ewing does not hold in trust for him, but purchased on his own account and with his own funds.
    General replications Were filed to the answers of Lane and Ewing, and upon the hearing, several witnesses were examined on the part of the complainants who testified to their belief that at or about the 1st June, 1829, and some of them prior thereto, and from thence up to the time of Doggett’s death, he was greatly enfeebled in body and mind, that his mind was so impaired as to render him incapable of transacting business with prudence. That he was subject during the whole period to convulsions, and finally became completely paralizad and died in that condition, about two years after the date of the deed to Lane, some of these witnesses considered him deranged for several years before his death and gave the reasons for that opinion founded upon his conduct and conversation. In their estimate of the value of this tract of land in June, 1829, they ranged from four dollars to ten dollars per acre,none of them fixing it at less than the former sum. See the testimony of James Bissell, St. Cyr. Brazeun, Chick, Gardner, Ranney, Graham, Quick. Mrs. Jackson.
    Defendant on his part introduced several witnesses, and amongst others Joseph C. Brown, one of the subscribing witnesses to the deed from Doggett to Lane, and who was the justice who took the acknowledgement of the deed at the request of the defendant Lane. He testifies that at the time of the acknowledgment of the deed, Doggett was sick in bed, but was convalescent. That he seemed to be rational and to understand what he was doing. That the witness saw nothing in his deportment to excite any suspicion that he was not capable of transacting business and did not fully understand what he was about. If he had observed any thing to the contrary, he would not have taken the acknowledgment That the defendant Lane delivered the deed to witness at the city of St Louis and requested him to cali at Doggett’s residence and take the acknowledgments, which he accordingly did at the residence of Doggett, Dr. Lane not being present.
    This and the other witnesses for defendant testified that although Doggett was in feeble health for several years before his death, he was in -the habit of going about the neighborhood, and to the city, and they saw nothing to justify the belief that he was either insane or incapable of transacting business with prudence and discretion. Hyatt, one of said witnesses, proves that on 30th January, 1830, he (witness) as admr. of widow Whistler, sold at auction the effects of her estate. That D oggett was ¡it the sale and bought some articles to the value of $68 50, and gave his note with security for the amount. That he was pale and emaciated, but walked around from place to place as the articles were sold- and witness then nor at any other time saw any symptons of mental alienation. When the note became due, in January, 1831, Doggett referred 'him to Dr. Lane for payment, and it was paid by Lane. Witness about same time held note on Doggett, due to Sullivan’s estate when it became due, Doggett referred him to Lane, who paid it. Doggett said Lane owed him, but did not state on what account. Soe also testimony of Murray, Milburn, Cerre, Goodwin and White.
    Defendant also read in evidence several deeds and ether instruments to show that the title to said tract was not only perplexed, but that defendant Lane, and after the sale to Ewing, the latter had been compelled to pay out considerable sums to purchase in outstanding titles or claims to said lands.
    They also read in evidence the sheriff’s deed to Ewing for Lane’s interest in this and sundry other tracts.
    At the hearing after the testimony was closed, the complainants moved to dismiss their bill without prejudice, but the court refused to allow it, to which the complainants excepted. The court upon the hearing dismissed the complainant’s bill absolutely and refused the relief prayed for. The complainants moved for a re-hearing for the usual reasons, which tho court overruled, and the complainants appealed.
    Crocicett & Briggs for appellant.
    1st. That the proof shows that at the date of the deed from Doggett to Lane, the former was non compos mentist and .herefore the deed is void.
    2d. That Doggett if not actually insane, was so enfeebled in body and mind by long disease, as that the least unfairness or want of good faith on the part of Lane, will vitiate the deed, and in this case there was such unfairness deducible from inadequacy of consideration and the relation of the parties- Deutley’s heirs vs. Murphy, 3 Marsh R. 479.
    3d. Inequity fraud includes all acts, omissions, and concealments which involve a breach of either legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence, and are injurious to another, or by which an undue and uneonscientious advantage are obtained. In this case there were such acts, omissions, and concealments, as involved a breach of trust and confidence on the part of Lane. Belcher vs. Belcher, 10 Serg. R. 121 ; 4 Dana 309. Buffalow vs. Buffalow, 2 Dev. & Batt 241.
    4th- That Lane being the relative of Doggett, and also his family physician, they stood towards each other in relations of confidence, and in such cases if there appear the least speck of fraud or imposition in obtaining the conveyance, it will be set aside, in the hands even of an innocent purchaser for a valuable consideration. The court wi'l undo the whole transaction. Whelan vs. Whelan, 3 Cow. 537; Livingston vs. Hubbs 2 John C. R. 515.
    5th. That fraud may be inferred from great inadequacy of price, or from the vendee being in a situation to exercise undue influence over the vendor. Gist vs* Fraser 2 Litt 118. In this case both reason*} exist for setting aside the deed-
    Ge.yejr for appellees-
    1st, The deed from Jno. Doggett to Wm. C. Lace which- the bill socks to set aside, was fairly obtained and a full consideration paid by the grantee. The allegations imputing fraud to the defendant Lane, are denied by the answer and disproved by the evidence. So. far from there being any fraud or imposition, the grantee was not present.at the execution of the deed nor within ten miles of the place.
    One of the subscribing witnesses who-took the acknowledgment of the deed., testifies to the capacity of the grantor and tile whole case shows that the defendant Lane, was the loser, and Doggett the gainer ; the one in buying and the other in selling a doubtful title, at all events it appears that Lane had a hard bargain.
    ?d. The Defendant Ewing is a purcaascr of the property at sheriff’s sale, npon. judgments and executions against Lane without knowledge-of an-y of the circumstances attending the conveyance by Doggett. He denies all hnowledge of any fraud or imposition in obtaining that conveyance or that he had,any reason to suspect the existence-of any. He negatives the allegation that he purchased or held the property for- the benefit of Lane. There is no-testimony proving or tending to prove any one of the allegations against Ewing. He must be regarded as a bonafide purchaser fora valuable consideration without notice of any unfairness on the part of Lane, and this alone defeats the whole bill.
    3d. The case was heard fully in the circuit court on the merits, and it does not appear that the court exorcised its discretion unsoundly in refusing to allow the complainants to. dismiss their bill without prejudice- The dismissal of a bill without prejudice docs not depend upon the discretion of the complainant which the court must allow for the asking. It depends on the exercise of sound discretion of the court and cannot be demanded as a matter of right without cause shown. In this case there was not even a suggestion that the complainants had been taken by surprise, or that they could supply any defect in the evidence,, orir. any manner make their ease better- A similar attempt was made in the same court in McNair vs. Biddle and others. It was unsuccessful in the circuit court, and met with no favor in this court, although the decision was excepted, and complained of in the appeal. The practice if once tolerated would perpetuate litigation and encourage experiments in the supreme as well as the inferior courts.
   Napton, judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The course which this case took in the circuit court would seem to indicate that the counsel who managed the case there did not have much confidence in the point which is solely relied upon for the reversal of the decree. At the hearing before the circuit court, a motion was made by the complainant to dismiss their bill without prejudice, and an exception was taken to the overruling of this motion. No point is made upon the exception here, and it is now contended that upon the bill, answers and testimony, the complainants were entitled to a de-r cree.

We shall state very briefly some of the reasons suggested by a eare^ ful examination of the record, which have induced us to yield a ready concurrence in the disposition which the circuit court made of the cause.

The answer of Lane is full, explicit and utterly contradictory of ev-* ery allegation in the bill which could lay the foundation of a decree favorable to the complainants. This answer is not attempted to be disproved, except upon the matter of Doggett’s incompetency. The testimony on this head will be found substantially set forth in the statement, and it is not, in our judgment, of such a character as would authorize the court to set asido a contract upon the ground of mental imbecility or insanity.

It appears that Doggett, previous to 1829, when this sale to Lane was made, had been afflicted at intervals with convulsions or epileptic fits ; that these attacks were succeeded by partial paroxisms which ultimately produced his death, in 18.31. No doubt this disease impaired to some extent the mental, as it did the bodily faculties of Doggett, but there is an entire failure of j>roof to show that at the time of this contract, or even afterwards, there was any thing approaching to insanity, or such continircd imbecility of mind as would incapacitate the sufferer from transacting his usual business. Some of the witnesses express an opinion, that at times Doggett was incompetent to manage his own affairs, but no facts are given sufficient to warrant the inference that these opinions were well founded. Every incident related by the witnesses to prove his incompetency may as well be accounted for on a different hypothesis.

If there were circumstances of fraud or imposition in the case, snch as gross inadequacy of price, or concealment of facts essential to a proper understanding of the contract, we might look more narrowly into the evidence of incompetency. -But Lane’s answer disproves every thing like imposition or fraud. His account of the matter, which is entirely uncontradicted, is, that having been on a visit to a patient in Doggett’s neighborhood, he happened at his house about night-fall, and at his instance remained all night: that Doggett proposed to sell him his land, and stated his price : that he took time to consider this proposition, and about two months afterwards informed Doggett that he would buy it at the price proposed : that the bargain was thereupon concluded, and Lane had a deed drawn up in St. Louis and sent it to Doggett’s residence, about twelve miles from the city, by a justice of the peace who is a witness in the case. This justice testifies that the deed was signed by Doggett without question, and apparently with a full understanding ,of its purport, and that his. wife (who is one of the complainants) executed her relinquishment of dower in the usual form, and after having been fully apprized of the character of the instrument. There surely could have been no imposition here, for Lane was not present at the execution of the deed, and when the contract was originally made, Lane was not attending Doggett as a physician, but visiting his house as a friend, and the proposition for the sale came from Doggett.

Nor is there any proof of inadequacy of price. Both Doggett and Lane were aware that Doggett’s title was defective. They both considered his title to about seventy acres as good, but as to the balance of the 770 arpens, it was amere speculation, and so understood by both parties. It cost Lane upwards of $2,000 to perfect the title, or at least to buy up such claims as were thought to threaten its stability. How are we to say that the price was inadequate ? By what critereon shall we determine the value of a speculation of this kind ? Doggett thought the price sufficient, as he himself proposed it, and Mrs. Doggett was not dissatisfied with it, as she made no objections, and both had ample time for reflection.

But there is another circumstance stated by Dr. Lane, and confirmed by some of the witnesses, which is entitled to weight. Long after this transaction, and up to Doggett’s death, Dr. Lane continued to be on friendly terms with the family. There was a relationship between them, and, after Doggett’s death, his widow continued to receive professional services and other acts of kindness from Dr. Lane rendered without compensation, and no intimation was ever suggested of this fraud upon her husband. Mrs, Doggett was permitted to remain in possession of this tract of land for several years after her husband’s death, as Dr. Lane’s tenant, and this tenancy was repeatedly acknowledged, and continued until the land passed from Dr. Lane to Ewing.

It is not very creditable to Mrs. Doggett to receive favors from a man whom she at the same time believed to have defrauded her husband, In fact her conduct shows most plainly that' she did not entertain this opinion of Dr. Lane until shortly before this suit was instituted. The bill was filed in 1845, and the deed to Lane was executed in 1829, An acquiescence for fifteen years in a fraud of this character, accompanied as it must have been with a full knowledge of its existence from the time it was perpetrated, ought to be accounted for.

The deed from Doggett to Lane was a conveyance without warranty .—a circumstance which confirms the statement of Lane in his answer, that both Doggett and himself were fully apprised of the uncertainty of the title.

Upon the whole, without adverting to the details of the testimony, Dr. Lane’s conduct in this transaction seems to have been perfectly upright, and not a single circumstance has been proved tending to cast any suspicion of fraud or imposition. The only facts in the case which could have such a tendency, are, that he was- dealing with a man afflicted with a chronic disease, and was his family physician. These facts alone do not warrant an inference of fraud, especially when there are no attending circumstances to corroborate such an inference.

It is useless to consider the case with reference to the. defendant Ewing, who was a purchaser under executions against Lane, without notice of the particular character of Lane’s, title, or the manner in which it was acquired. Whether he would have been affected by Lane’s frauds, had any such been committed, we shall not consider, as no fraud was proved upon Lane. *

Although the propriety of dismissing the bill generally, notwithstanding the motion of the complainants to have it dismissed without prejudice, is not discussed in the written argument submitted to the court, yet as it is made a point in the assignment of errors, it is proper to dispose of it. After the case was fully submitted at the hearing, without any pretence that any additional facts could be procured, we think the court was fully justified in making a final decree. There must be an end to litigation in chancery as well as in a court of law. The chancellor has doubtless a discretion in such matters, but there was nothing in this case to show that this discretion was unsoundly exercised.

The other judges concurring, the decree is affirmed.  