Page images

By her separate amended answer and crossNELSON V. ALPORT et al. (No. 16481.) bill, defendant Lena Alport in substance al(Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2. leged : July 14, 1914.)

(1) That on June 5, 1908, she was the own1. DEEDS ($ 211*)—SETTING ASIDE-ACTIONS-er of the above-mentioned real estate, and EVIDENCE-SUFFICIENCY.

on that day signed and delivered a contract In a suit to set aside a conveyance by a by which she agreed to sell said real estate married woman, a finding that she was not in to defendant Torrey H. Thompson for the duced to enter into the contract for the sale of her property by fraudulent misrepresentations sum of $20,000, $1,000 of which was recited in held not contrary to the weight of the evidence. said contract to have been deposited with H.

[Ed. Note.--For other cases, see Deeds, Cent. R. Ennis & Co. (as agents of defendant) to be Dig. $8 637–647; Dec. Dig. $ 211.*]

applied on the purchase price, $14,000 in cash 2. DEEDS ($ 211*)-ACTIONS-EVIDENCE. upon the delivering of a general warranty

In a suit by a married woman to set aside deed to said property. Said property to be a conveyance of her separate property, evidence held insufficient to show that the conveyance conveyed subject to a deed of trust which was made as result of her husband's coercion was then on the property, amounting to the and the fraud of the purchaser's agent.

sum of $5,000, and also subject to state and [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Deeds, Cent. county taxes. That said contract further Dig. $8637-647; Dec. Dig. § 211.*]

provided that defendant might remain in pos3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT ($ 62*)-MARRIED Wo-session for two months from the date of the MEN-ACTIONS-EVIDENCE-SUFFICIENCY.

In a suit where a married woman sought to delivery of the deed at a monthly rental set aside a deed on the ground that the acknowl- of $25. edginent was not her free act and deed, a decree (2) That the making of said contract was denying her claim held not contrary to the procured by fraud on the part of plaintiff weight of the evidence.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Acknowledg. and defendants Ennis and Thompson in this: ment, Cent. Dig. 88 345-347; Dec. Dig. 8 62.*] That said Ennis was engaged in the real

estate business in Kansas City under the Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson Coun- name of H. R. Ennis & Co., and that said ty; W..0. Thomas, Judge.

company assumed to act as agents of this Suit by William R. Nelson against Bernard defendant, and accepted the deposit of $1,000 Alport and Lena Alport, who cross-complains. on the purchase price on behalf of this deFrom a judgment for plaintiff, the last-named fendant, when the said Ennis was in fact defendant appeals. Affirmed.

the agent of the plaintiff for the purpose of This suit was originally instituted by the purchasing the above-described property. plaintiff filing in the circuit court of Jack. That said Thompson was associated with deson county, Mo., his petition in ejectment fendant Ennis, and aided Ennis in procuring against Lena Alport and her husband, Ber- said contract. That defendant Ennis connard Alport, to recover the south one-half cealed that he was the agent of plaintiff, and of lot 383, block 29, in McGee's addition to made defendant an offer of $20,000 for the Kansas City, Mo.; the property was known property as coming from the defendant as No. 1731 Grand avenue, Kansas City, Mo. Thompson. That defendant refused to acDefendants filed answer, asking for affirma- cept said offer, but offered to sell the same tive equitable relief. It appears that some for $25,000. That said Ennis, in order to detime after the suit was originally instituted ceive and defraud said defendant, Lena Alplaintiff instituted in a justice of the peace port, represented that if she would sell her court in Kansas City a suit in unlawful de- said property for the sum of $20,000, he, the tainer, to recover from the defendants the said Ennis, would cause to be sold to her possession of the same property. Thereafter the south half of lot 377 in McGee's addition plaintiff, in attempting to dispose of the case to Kansas City, Mo., known as 1707 Grand in the circuit court, dismissed his petition, avenue, for the sum of $18,000. That the but the court, over the objection of plaintiff, premises numbered 1707 Grand avenue were refused to dismiss the answer of defendant, in the same block as defendant's above-deon the ground that it asked for affirmative scribed property, and was of the same dimenrelief. Thereafter plaintiff filed a reply to sions as defendant's property, and the imthe amended answer of defendants. Later provements thereon were as good or better defendant Lena Alport filed her separate than those upon defendant's lot. That there. amended answer and cross-bill, undertaking upon said Ennis prepared and presented to to make H. R. Ennis and one T. H. Thompson her and her husband for their signature the defendants in the cause. Unsuccessful mo-written contract for the sale of defendant's tions were made by the plaintiff and defend property as above mentioned. That defendants Ennis and Thompson to strike the cross- ant and her said husband were unable to read bill from the files. Later plaintiff filed a or write in the English language, and that reply to the separate amended answer of the defendant relied upon the honesty and good defendant Lena Alport, and it was upon the faith of defendant Ennis, and signed the issues thus raised by the answer of defend-above-mentioned contract by making her ant Lena Alport and plaintiff's reply thereto mark thereon, believing that it was a proper that the trial was had in the circuit court. I and necessary step for carrying out and ef

•For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Ladexes fecting the exchange of properties in accord-, the sum of $15,000 in cash, subject to said ance with the offer made to her by defendant mortgage of $5,000. Ennis. That after she and her husband had (2) That on the 24th day of June, 1908, signed the above-mentioned contract said En- defendant sold and conveyed said real estate nis refused to make a contract to sell the to said H. R. Ennis for the above-mentioned property at 1707 Grand avenue for the sum sum, and that said H. R. Ennis by warranty of $18,000. That said Ennis and Thompson deed conveyed said property to said plaintiff were the agents of the plaintiff, and that the herein at and for the same consideration. recital in said contract that H. R. Ennis & That plaintiff is now the owner in fee of Co. were the agents of defendant was false. said property. That immediately after plainThat the $1,000 deposit mentioned in said tiff purchased said property he rented said contract was never in fact made. That de premises to defendant and her husband at fendant never intended to make a contract of and for the sum of $25 a month, and that the above import and effect, but that her sig. said defendant occupied said premises as nature was obtained thereto by the fraud tenants of the plaintiff and paid rent thereand misrepresentations above mentioned, and for as such tenants up to and including for that reason the same ought to be set March 24, 1908, when defendant and her aside and held as fraudulent and void. husband refused to make further payments

(3) That afterwards, in order to make this of rent, and refused to give up possession defendant perform the fraudulent contract of said premises. above mentioned, said Ennis, with three oth- (3) That defendant and her said husband er persons, came to plaintiff's home and pre- have ever since kept and retained said sum sented to her a warranty deed for her sig- of $15,000, and have never made any lawful nature, which the defendant refused to sign. tender thereof to plaintiff herein. That prior That said Ennis told defendant that if she to the time defendant and her husband exrefused to execute the deed, he would have the ecuted the said deed they had full knowledge deed of trust on her property foreclosed and of all their alleged rights, if any they had, the property sold, so that the same would be to have said deed set aside, but never ascome wholly lost to the defendant. That serted said rights or any claim in that behalt he induced defendant's husband to join with until long after May 1, 1909, and that by him in endeavoring to force defendant to reason thereof they are estopped to assert execute said deed. That at said time defend- any right to set aside said deeds. That deant was in a sick and weakened condition, fendant's claim is wrongful and malicious and unable to cope with said Ennis and oth- and without any foundation in fact, and er persons to protect her rights and to with prays that judgment be entered against the stand the threats and statements of said defendants, adjudging that they have no Ennis and her said husband, and that by right, title, or interest in or to said premreason of the same, she, jointly with her hus- ises, or to have said deeds set aside, and that band, executed said warranty deed, whereby judgment be entered that plaintiff has the she conveyed said property to said Ennis for right to the immediate possession of said the sum of $15,000 in cash, and subject to the premises, and that defendants be compelled said deed of trust for $5,000, but that the to surrender said premises to the plaintiff, same was not her free act and deed, and that and that plaintiff be allowed damages and, this defendant was coerced, overreached, and for such other relief as to the court may defrauded into executing said deed. That in seem meet and just in the premises. all the matters and things aforesaid Ennis

Trial was had in the circuit court, resultwas the agent and acting for the plaintiff. ing in a judgment in favor of plaintiff and That at the time said deed was executed said against the defendants. The trial court Ennis paid to defendant's husband $15,000, found that on June 24, 1908, defendant and which sum defendant is ready and willing her said husband conveyed said property to to repay said Ennis or to the plaintiff, and H. R. Ennis for the sum of $20,000, $15,000 now offers to pay the same as the court may of which was paid in cash and the remaining adjudge, or to pay the same into this court $5,000 paid by the assumption on the part upon its decree setting aside said deed and of said Ennis of the $5,000 mortgage then excontract. That afterwards said Ennis con- isting on said property, and that on said date veyed said property by warranty deed to the said Ennis conveyed said property to said plaintiff herein.

plaintiff herein, and that plaintiff since that (4) The prayer of the answer was that the time has paid off said mortgage. The court above-mentioned contract and deeds be set further found that said Lena Alport signed aside, and that the title to said property be the deed to Ennis, and acknowledged the adjudged and decreed to be in this defendant, same as her free act and deed, and that no and for such further relief as may be just fraud was practiced on her by said Ennis or and equitable in the premises.

said plaintiff or his agents in securing her The reply contained, in substance, the fol- signature to the deed. The court further lowing allegations:

found that the plaintiff was the owner of (1) General denial, except that it admitted and entitled to the immediate possession of, that defendant and her husband conveyed said real estate; that defendants were not titled to remain in possession of said prem-, count the money and he helped count it. That ises; that defendants' amended answer and Mr. Ennis and Mr. Thompson said, “Mrs. Alcounterclaim be dismissed; and that plaintiff port, you have got to sign a deed. We have

got a contract, and we will go by law you recover his costs.

should sell it; we will make you sell it." Ånd The record is voluminous and the testi- one of them said that “they had plenty of monmony very conflicting.

ey to file suit, and another said they would

close me out, and I would lose my property Defendants' testimony concerning the de- and I didn't know what to do." That she said cisive issues in the case was substantially as to them: "I won't sign the deed because you've follows:

fooled me, and I don't want to sell it, and I Mrs. Alport testified in her own behalf will not sell it for anything." That her daugh

ter, Mrs. Peltzman, was in the store when the stating:

gentlemen came, and later Mrs. Peltzman's husThat she was 39 years old, was born in Rus- band came to the store. Later a Mr. Hock sia, but had lived in the United States 24 years. came to the store. (It will appear later that That in June, 1908, she owned the real estate Mr. Hock was an attorney officing in Mr. in controversy.

That she and her husband Block's office, and was the notary who took used the property as their home, and also con- the acknowledgment to the deed.) That she didn't ducted a new and secondhand store business know why Mr. Hock happened to come to the on the premises. That she and her husband store, but that he told her she should sign the had been in the secondhand business together deed and get through with it. That during for about 23 years. That a few days before the time the money was on the floor, the front June 5, 1908, Mr. Ennis and Mr. Thompson door to the store was locked. That she was called at her place of business and asked for sick and did not know what to do, but that a price upon her said property. She told them Mr. Hock said: "Well, do it anyhow, Mrs. Alshe would not take less than $25,000. That port, sign the deed and get through, I can't Mr. Ennis offered her $20,000, and she refused stay here all afternoon.' That Mr. Hock was the offer. That Mr. Ennis then told her that not representing the four gentlemen, and was the property at No. 1707 Grand avenue, which pot representing her. That her husband urged was in the same block as her property, was the her to sign the deed, and said to her: “You are same sized lot, and had better improvements on sick, and I am going away to leave you with it than her own, could be purchased for $18,000, the children, and I will go away and you can and that Mr. Ennis made the proposition that do anything you want.” That finally she took if she would sell her property to him for $20,- hold of the pen and made her mark, and Mr. 000, he would sell the property at 1707 Grand Hock said, “Mrs. Alport, will you swear?" and, avenue to her for $18,000. That

she accepted Do you sell of your free will?" and I said, this last proposition. That Mr. Ennis agreed No, sir;" and then he said, "Gentlemen, she with her that he and her husband would go don't sell with a free will;" and the other gendown to an attorney's office, that of Mr. Leon tleman says, “Never mind; we got her signaBlock, and have two contracts drawn, one pro- ture anyhow.” After that Mr. Ennis and Mr. viding for the sale of her property to Ennis, and Thompson, my husband, and my son-in-law all the other providing for the sale of the proper- went to the bank with the money. That she ty at.1707 Grand avenue to her. That she un- did not want to go to the bank, but that her derstood Mr. Ennis was the buyer of her prop- daughter said, “Mama, papa says he is going erty, but that he did not mention anybody as to leave you," and for that reason her daughter being the buyer. That thereupon Mr. Ennis made her go. That she went down to the and her husband went away, saying that they bank, but did not touch the money and did not were going down to Mr. Block's office to have care for it. That she did not authorize Mr. the contract drawn. She later went to Mr. Ennis' firm to receive $1,000 for her upon the Block's office and found nobody there but the contract. That she did not pay Mr. Ennis, or office girl. She received a telephone call to any one else, any rent on the place after the come home, and when she arrived home she deed was made. That the first time she knew found Mr. Thompson and another young man

any rent was being paid was when notice was there. That Mr. Thompson told her that he served upon her to move out, and that she sent had the contract ready to sign and that she Mr. Nelson and Mr. Ennis a letter, which signed the contract. That after signing the she had her daughter write for her, and which contract she said to Mr. Thompson, "Where she had sworn to before a notary public. is my contract?" and Thompson replied, "It is The letter here referred to was as follows: too late; you can't get it.' That when she signed the contract Mr. Ennis said: "Please

"Kansas City, Mo., Oct. 12, '08. don't tell anybody. Keep quiet." That Mr. "Messrs. H. R. Ennis & Co.-Dear Sirs: I Thompson read the contract over to her, but will not give up possession of premises No. that she didn't understand what half of it 1731 Grand enue until you pay me the other meant. That when she signed this contract she five thousand dollars. You know, as well as thought she was going to get a contract so that I do, that the sale was as is no sale, that you she could purchase the property at 1707 Grand forced me to sell against my_wish, in fact avenue, and that otherwise she would not have cheated me out of my home. You also know sold her property. That when Mr. Thompson that my original price was twenty five thousand told her it was too late for her to get the other dollars, and as I understood the contract to property, she thought to herself that she "would read the price was to be twenty thousand dolnot give him the abstract," but that finally her lars net, you to pay the mortgage of five thouhusband went down to the "mortgage man" sand. You seemed to think me an unimportant and gave Mr. Thompson the abstract. That personage, bargaining with Mr. Alport, and she had no further talk with Mr. Thompson or even sending me, the owner, into the kitchen. Mr. Ennis until they afterwards came down to You threatened me with suit at the time, and her place of business to get her to sign the thought you would scare me, but I never was deed. On this occasion, Mr. Ennis, Mr. Thomp- scared, and wish I had let you file suit. Now son, and two other gentlemen came to her place what I have to say is that if you want a clear of business about 11 o'clock_in the morning, deed and title to that property you will obtain carrying a satchel, and Mr. Ennis said, "Here it only by paying me the remaining five thouis $20,000,” and opened the satchel and spread sand dollars. You will want possession of the the money, which consisted of gold pieces, outplace, but you will never get it for I am preon the floor of the store. That she did not pared to stay here until this matter is settled in touch the money, and did not want her husband a satisfactory way. I know you will file suit to touch it, but that they asked her husband to for ejecting me, but there is where trouble will


start for you, for I will carry this affair on who sold their property, and that Mr. Ennis from court to court, even to the Supreme Court was not in any sense "our agent." That he of the United States. I don't care if it takes did not hear of the tender of $15,000 in gold unone hundred years to come to a close, and if i til after it was made. That be called upon Mr. don't get it settled, my children or grandchil- Ennis to find this property for him, because he dren will. No amount of litigation will make understood that Mr Ennis handled considerable me give up my home unless I get the remaining property in that locality. The witness did not money. If you don't want to do this, I can re- know anything about the terms of the transacturn the fifteen thousand dollars you gave me tion, but stated that those matters were attendat any time. Then you will not get it even for ed to by his employé, Mr. Seested. fifty thousand dollars. I don't want you to think that this is the last of this affair as I

Mr. Seested was called as a witness for the mean all that I say or write.

defendant, and stated : "Respectfully,

That he was in the employ of Mr. Nelson at

the time of the purchase of the property for the "Lena X Alport. new site, and stated that after Mr. Ennis would mark

make purchases of properties and make first "Witnesses:

payments on the same, Mr. Nelson would re"M. Finkelstein,

imburse him for the outlay That Mr. Ennis "1. Peltzman.

was not to receive any compensation from Mr. "Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th Nelson for the purchase of this property. That day of October, 1908.

Mr. Charles H. Adams, an attorney, examined “H. Rubenstein, Notary Public. [Seal] the abstracts of title to the respective pieces of “My commission expires May 14th, 1911." property for Mr. Nelson. This witness testified

to the prices given for several of the other lots The witness further testified:

which were included in this 300-foot strip purThat the $15,000 was deposited in her hus- chased for the new site, and from this evidence band's name. On cross-examination she testi- it appears that some of the properties cost more fied that Mr. Thompson never did offer to give than was given for defendant's property, and her $25,000 for her property, but that they of some of the properties were purchased at a less fered to give her $20,000 for her property and figure, but it appears that the price paid to desell her the property at 1707 Grand avenue for fendant was at least an average, if not a little $18,000, but never offered to sell ber the prop- above the average, price paid for all of the prope erty after that time. That at the time she and erties on Grand avenue. Mr. Endis came to terms about the sale of the property, Mr. Ennis asked who their lawyer

Meyer Peltzman, son-in-law of Mrs. Alport, was, and defendant's husband said, "Mr. Block," testified for the defendant: and thereupon Mr Ennis agreed that they would That he was present when Mrs. Alport exego to Mr. Block and have bim draw up the con- | cuted the deed on June 5, 1908. That he arrived tract. That she did not know that Mr. Hock at the store about 12:30 p. m., and Mrs. Alport worked in Mr. Block's law office. She further was behind a desk back of the counter, and her testified that at tbe time she signed the deed she husband was on the floor counting the gold. was not scared about what Mr. Ennis said That Mrs. Alport kept telling her husband to about his going to sue her, but that she was leave the money alone, but that he kept counting scared on account of her husband's saying he it and seemed excited. That when they got was going to leave her. She was asked if she through counting the money, Mr. Ennis and the was willing to trust her husband with the $15,- other gentlemen asked Mrs. Alport to sign the 000. The only answer that she would make deed, but she refused to sign it. That later to this question was, "He had it in the bank.” | Mr Hock came to the store, but the witness That afterwards her husband bought some prop, said he did not know why Mr. Hock happened erty on Eighteenth street, and had the deed to come. That Mr. Ennis and the other genmade in her name. When asked if her husband tlemen kept asking Mrs. Alport to sign the used a part of the $15,000 that was in the bank deed, and told her that she had her money and to buy this property, she answered: “I don't everything else, and the best thing she could do know; I guess I did.” She further testified would be to sign, because "it would be just a that when she went before the notary and took lot of trouble, lawsuits and one thing and anan oath as to the contents of the letter above other, and the best you can do is to sign it and copied, she knew what was in the letter. She settle it up." And that Mr. Hock said: “You further testified that Mr. Block had acted as had better sign the deed. You have got the monher attorney on one prior occasion when she ey and everything straightened up, and you will purcbased some property.

have lawsuits and one thing and another." That William R. Nelson, the plaintiff, was called finally they persuaded her to sign the deed, and

that then Mr Hock wanted her to acknowledge as a witness for the defendant, and testified the deed as of "her own free will," and Mr. Enas follows:

nis asked her to swear it was of her own free That he was the grantee in the deed where will, but she refused “to swear," and Ennis by Mr. Ennis and wife conveyed to him the said. "Well, leave it go at that; she didn't property in question for a consideration of $20,- have to swear to it.” That before the deed was 000; that some time before the purchase of signed Mrs. Alport and her husband conversed this property he requested Mr. Ennis, who was with each other in the Hebrew language, and a real estate dealer, to come to his office, and Mr. Alport told her that if she was not going stated that he was desirous of finding a new lo- to take the money and sign the deed, "he was cation between Seventeenth and Eighteenth or going to leave her, leave her with the children." between Sixteenth and Seventeenth streets, and The witness stated that he did not telephone for desired a strip 300 feet wide running from Mr. Hock to come down to the store, and did street to street in any one of those blocks. At not know why Mr. Hock came down to the store, this time Mr. Nelson stated to Mr. Ennis the or who sent for him. That he did not hear Mr. price that he would be willing to give for such a Adams state that he "would not accept any location, and told Mr. Ennis that he did not deed that this woman would not acknowledge to care to have the matter advertised, or, as stated be her free act and deed.” The witness stated in the witness' language. _*We didn't care to that he went with them when they took the put it on the billboard." That he fixed a price money to the bank out of curiosity. That he above which he would not go, and that he was went with his father-in-law, but did not remempot to pay Mr. Ennis any commission, and did ber whether Mrs Alport went to the bank or not pay him any commission, but that Mr. En-not. That he saw the $15,000 counted out at Dis was to get his commission from the people the bank and put in a safety deposit box.


Mrs. Fannie Peltzman, daughter of Mrs. , told them the only thing they could do was to Alport, testified:

make a legal tender. The witness told Mr. That she was present when her mother signed Ennis that he had better make the tender in the contract for the sale of the lot, and that she gold, so there could be no question about it. signed her mother's name to the contract (her the witness told her that they had come to

Upon reaching Mrs. Alport's place of business, mother signed by mark). That she was also make a legal tender of the amount due under present when her mother signed the deed. She the contract, and to demand a deed to the propcorroborated her mother's testimony and her

erty. That defendants refused to make the husband's testimony concerning the exhibit of $15,000 in gold, and stated that she did not deed, saying that they were to get $20,000 in know why Mr. Hock happened to come to the anything about the $18,000 property on Grand

That he did not hear defendants say store and take the acknowledgment of the deed,

When defendants refused to make the but that she did not think he was called by her deed, witness said to them: "We will count father, mother, or her husband. She further the money out and tender it to you, and of corroborates the testimony of her mother and

course if you don't give the deed, we will have witness' husband as to the conversation occur

to bring suit on the contract." That the money ring at the time the deed was signed. That one

was then poured out on the floor and counted. of the men and Mr. Hock said to the witness: That after that defendant's husband said they "Well, Mrs. Peltzman, you just write her Mrs. would execute the deed if Mr. Ennis would Alport's] name down.' Witness said she did so make some concessions with regard to the paybecause she wanted to be “respectful." She ment of some of the taxes and about letting said that the reason her mother gave for not the defendants stay in the premises for a while wanting to sign the deed was that she wanted without paying any rent. That Mr. Ennis that place up on Seventeenth street, or else she agreed to make the concessions. Witness then wanted $25,000. The witness corroborated her told defendant's husband that he would not mother's testimony, concerning the agreement accept a delivery of the deed unless defendant's reached between Mr. Ennis and Mrs. Alport attorney was present and advising them, so prior to the execution of the contract for the that they would know exactly what they were sale of this land, and that when Mr. Thompson doing when they delivered the deed, and that brought the contract for Mrs. Alport's signa- thereupon Mr. Alport sent either his daughter ture he asked the witness to keep the sale se

or his son-in-law to telephone for his attorney, cret. That he handed Mrs. Alport the contract; and, after waiting a while and the attorney but Mrs. Alport could not read English, and not'arriving, either the daughter or the son-inhanded the contract to the witness. The witness law went out and telephoned again, and in a started to read the contract, but Mr. Thompson little while Mr. Hock came in. After Mr. took the contract out of her hands and went up Hock came he consulted with defendants, aside toward the front of the store and read it so fast that the witness did not think that her sultation the attorney, Mr. 'Hock, informed Mr.

from the rest of the party, and after the conmother understood a word of it. That after the Ennis that defendants were willing to make the contract was signed, Mrs. "Alport asked Mr. deed. That the deed was signed, and Mr. AlThompson for the other contract, and that Mr. ports acknowledgment was taken first. That Thompson said: “It's too late, Mrs. Alport, I'm when the notary, Mr. Hock, went to take Mrs. sorry." On cross-examination the witness testi-Alport's acknowledgment, he heard her say, I fied: That she wrote the letter which her moth- don't acknowledge this to be my act and deed," er sent to Mr. Ennis and Mr. Nelson. That she and that thereupon witness said, "If she don't suggested to her mother to write this letter be acknowledge it to be her free act and deed, we cause she thought perhaps Mr. Nelson did not won't accept it." That after waiting awhile, know anything about the trick that had been Mrs. Alport finally acknowledged the deed to be played on her mother. When asked why she her free act and deed and the deed was then did not say anything in the letter about not get

delivered. Upon cross-examination the witness ting the property at 1707 Grand avenue, she

was asked if it was not their preconceived plan said that her mother did ask her to put that in the letter, but she replied to her mother: "There gold "was likely to have a strong effect on a

to make the tender in gold because the sight of is no use giving them your secrets." When asked if her mother was scared at the time she Jew.” To this the witness replied that such signed the deed conveying the property to Ennis, the use of gold so that there could be no ques

was not their intention, but that he had advised she said: “She wasn't exactly scared. She was

tion about the legality of the tender. That he very much wrought up. Well she wasn't scared about the deed or anything like that, you know. I had never seen the defendants before going She didn't want to sign that deed. i' don't know down to make the tender. That the sight of what was in her mind. She wasn't scared at / gold did seem to have a certain degree of fasci

nation to Mr. Alport, but that the gold did not their threats, but she was scared when papa said he was going away." That was the only seem to have any effect on Mrs. Alport. That thing that scared her. She said her father got husband was in Hebrew, and the witness could

the conversation between Mrs. Alport and her excited over the $15,000 in gold. Before the contract was signed she heard her father say, "Go sation with each other.

not understand what they said in their conver

That after the deed up to Mr. Block and have the contract drawn," and that the men folks went up and that her

was signed and delivered the parties all went up

to the bank to have the count of the money mother went afterwards.

verified. That the defendants seemed to be The evidence on behalf of plaintiff Nelson perfectly satisfied with the transaction when and defendants Ennis and Thompson was the money was being counted at the bank. substantially as follows:

William C. Hock, the attorney and notary Charles B. Adams, attorney at law, testi. who took the defendants' acknowledgment to fied:

the deed, testified: That he was employed by Mr. Nelson to That at the time the deed was signed he was pass upon the abstracts to the various lots pur officing with Attorney Leon Block. That at chased by Nelson. That he was present at Mr. Block's request the witness prepared the Mrs. Alport's place of business the day the deed. That when he prepared the deed he had deed from Mrs. Alport and husband to Ennis the contract for the sale of the property before was executed. That he went down there at him. That at the bottom of the contract for the request of Mr. Ennis. That before going the sale of the property, Mr. Block had placed down Mr. Ennis told the witness that Mrs. his “O.K," and that some of the interlineations, Alport and husband had refused to make a in the contract for the sale of the property were deed to the property, and asked Mr. Adams made in the handwriting of Mr. Block. That what they should do in the matter. That he one of these interlineations was: "The sellers

« PreviousContinue »