*1 Revised in his return Statutes or tlie other defenses set forth to the writ. alternative judgment pleadings on the follows relators’ motion for should, overruled, quashed. writ
should bs and that alternative It- is so ordered. All concur. Bargain Realty Company, Appellants,
A. J. Scott Branner Administrator, J. and William v. Fred Klaber, Public Estate of Samuel W. Scott. 49 Administrator of the Carroll, (2d) 169. April 12, One, 1932.* Division Opinion Term, 1931, February 11, 1932; *NÓTE: filed at October motion filed; rehearing April Term, April motion overruled at 1932. *2 ¿V. J. Johnson, M. Prince, Beery Ray- Waller A. C. James mond appellant. *3 respondents. Houts for Conrad, L. E. Durham and Hale
Henry 8. *4 HYDE, C. This January is an action to cancel deed executed 16, 1909, plaintiff Realty Bargain corporation, a' Company, .original defendant Samuel Scott, W. and to recover conveyed. Samuel Scott, defendant, after the died trial in the court and circuit against the case has been his revived administrators. Plaintiff, Branner, J. Annie physician. was a licensed She w'as married, Branner, divorced, times, to one later but at all professional reasons, was called and she will so Annie business, engaged referred to herein. was also real estate She Bargain Realty organized purpose. for this except shares, She held all of its stock two were held em- *5 qualify Bargain Realty ployeеs, as them directors. The herein, title to involved which is a tract of held about the.land securing by acres. Nine acres deed of trust an encumberegL v'ere a $3,000. remaining indebtedness of Tbe ten acres were encumbered by County a securing deed of $2,700. trust land was in Jackson This near Park,- City Fairmount Independence. between Kansas Dr. platted Annie Scott it as the Kinloch No but Addition. lots were sold conveyed sought the whole tract was to Samuel W. Scott deed to be set aside in this action.
Samuel W. appears Scott per- have been man of colorful Scott, him sonality. He' went the title of Dr. will we refer to distinguish as Dr. S. W. in plaintiff order to him from Dr. physician Annie Scott. He was not a and the title of “Doctor” was be, for, suggested by Presiding Judge unaccounted unless it argument, this Division at the oral corpora- he was a “doctor of story goes days tions.” The Diaz, this case back to Dictator, who, rule, kept peace, iron-handed at for than more years, Republic the turbulent W. Scott, Mexico. Dr. S. early Nineties, searching valleys was the mountains and of that gold, During country silver and oil. time he ac- became quainted English with Denton, Colonel William- offijcer, a former wife, his of Spanish descent, high with connections in Mexico. One of Mrs. Supreme Denton’s near Justice of relatives was a Court of Mexico Archbisho-p. Denton, himself,- another an Colonel said to have been with Diaz. connected business President Dr. daughter Scott married the of Colonel Denton and thereafter be- acquainted
came with President Diaz, President Madero and other prominent government according officials in who, the Mexican to his evidence, family. were friends of the Denton
In through the course of his travels Mexico Dr. W. Scott dis-^ covered tract of land on the Sota La Marina River in-the-Mexican Tamaulipas, state of northernmost Gulf Mexican states. Dr. S. dealing land, W. Scott’s first with this so far as the record shows, rights was to obtain the oil corporation, on it the first interested,- we find- him The Mexico^Texas Petroleum and these, Asphalt Company. rights Plaintiffs claim that oil were never released and that for this and other reasons Scott could convey not part clear title to that afterwards at- tempted sell, but the evidence leaves all this in doubt. appears, however, litigation Mexico, that after in which Dr. S. W. Scott successful, 75,000 land, some kind of a title to acres at the Sota confluence La. Marina Rivers, and Las Palmas was vested- corporation, organized by in another Dr. S. W. called Sota Development Company. Land and what this company Marina J.u.st do, attempted to with the is-not clear from record, but it appears object to have been unsuccessful in may whatever its have been.
312 Kansas appeared in early part
In of Dr. S. W. Scott dealers City. of its real estate He was able to interest some with into a contract entered March, his Mexican In tract. organiza- for the Missouri, providing six other all residents of men, In S. W. Scott. Dr. from corporation purchase tion of a this land incor- of Scott, May, 1908, they, executed articles with Dr. Land and Gulf poration corporation to be known the Mexican for (then) incorporated in Development Company, Limited, to be and will Development Company, as we here- Territory of Arizona. The incorporation it, a certificate after refer to thereafter received all of the in- Territory stated that from the of Arizona. Its articles including of the State corporators, Dr. S. W. were residents very They stated, general nature of the busi- broadly, the Missouri. among included, corporation, which to be transacted ness milling, refining, irrigation, things, mining, manufacturing, other railways steamship operating power light plants, operating and and selling incorporating in Arizona estate. The reason lines and real Marina Dr. Scott’s Sota was said to be that laws corporation and that he was familiar with the an Arizona territory. corporate procedure of that provided capital for a stock of incorporation The articles 10,000 par $100 each. $1,000,000, shares of the value divided into 2,500 preferred stock and provided It was that should be shares 7,500 incorporators saw be common stock. None of the shares should Develop- money capital of this to risk own fit their selling pre- capital Company, proceeded to obtain its ment but sold, preferred stock public. With each share of ferred stock was not given purchaser. This stock was to the a share of common plan incorporators, appears, since under the so liberal as it first anything. being It was possibility of worth there was either little capital them, stated, as hereinafter understood between purchasing the Mexican land from obtained, was to be used thus Development Company’s operating paying the Dr. S. W. Scott and May 25, meeting ivas expenses. first of the stockholders held The adopted. preferred by-laws City, sale Kansas selling campaign This stock seems was thereafter commenced. stock “development.” In company’s most successful hav'e been the ‘‘ ’’ State, .Me is known as the Show spite of the fact Missouri year purchase applications more signed Missouri citizens of corporation. preferred stock of this Annie $100,000 than July, signed applications In she of these. Scott was one following stock, preferred contained state- shares :ments fully paid
“These and non-assessable and shares stock a.re annum, per (7%) per bear rate cent interest date at the of seven annually. payable (5) principal interest, payable,
“This is due five stock subject corporation at date, payment from its but is said any time. *7 my returning option
“It is further that I the of understood have any treasury time preferred stock into of said at the thereof, same, I the holder of and to receive lieu while am the Mexico, the Republic of at company for of in the a deed said the first selling ($10) per has been fixed for price. dollars acre Ten 10,000 acres sold. by prop- is a all of the preferred purchased me lien on
“The stock by agreed erty аnd belonging corporation. It is understood to said right corporation reserves the holder of this certificate that reserving, by of this lien part free and clear to sell of said land every sold, as ($5) for acre however, each and per five dollars acre sinking pay stock. preferred fund to said ‘‘ me, paid for preferred subscribed For share of stock each (1) common of the charge, share have, of one I am to free further corporation.” stock of said
Dr. paid Annie Scott gave $100 in aggregat- cash and three notes ing year. $9,900, due in She preferred one was issued stock cer- tificates, August 28, T908, for which contained sub- shares .100 stantially agreements the same application. as the She also abov'e received 100 of shares common stock.
On August 14, 1908, the Gulf board of directors of the Mexican (which Development Company Land and Dr. was "W. Scott and incorporators) meeting Laredo, Texas, the other six at held unanimously accepted proposition Dr. W. submitted Scott conveyed whereby 75,000 company. Dr. of land was to the acres having $49,830 ($5,170 paid, purchase price, S. W. Scott was on the him) paid $2,000 ex previously paid and was also for been сonveyance. conveyance required al penses It seemed that such Scott, W. Mrs. S. treaties between nations. most the ceremonies of present To take care spoke Spanish, interpreter. who was Mullallv, a formalities, Judge Texas parties present lawyer. Booth lawyer, Ayala, a Mexican and General Garza [See ] Mo. l. c. 39. Dr. S. accepted, provided board proposition, Development Com- conveyed, to the cause to be W. should Scott $150,000 1,000 shares com- tract for 75.000-acre pany, the company should issue company, but that mon stock common stock preferred for all of certificates Dr. S. of the company, which he payment should hold to secure the purchase price, except five shares common stock to be issued to each of the other part payment directors in of their services to the com- pany. 1,000 When preferred shares of stock had been sold Scott was to transfer back this preferred number of shares both and common stock purchaser to be issued to the and was to receive payment the first $55,000. (This apparently immediately done.) proceeds The remainder of received for the sale of the first 1,000 shares company should be used promotion for expenses and developing company the land. The agreed further to sell as possible soon as as much of preferred the remainder of' the stock as necessary pay would be Dr. S. W. Scott pur- the balance of the price $95,000 chase per with' six cent interest. provid- It was further that, ed if enough land could sold pay him, fast the sale of the preferred stock suspended. could be Dr. S. W. Scott was to receive proceeds two-thirds of the of all sales. Provisions also were made for surveying laying land and providing out a townsite and water irrigation. Dispelling supply remaining all doubt, those for whose corporation organized, benefit the agreed it was *8 the directors, upon payment other six $95,000 final of to W. Scott, 3,970 remaining should have the shares of common stock among services; divided that, them for their in and also case it was necessary not preferred stock, remaining to sell of all com- stock, given stock, mon which preferred was to be with each share of equally should be among directors, including divided Dr. S. W. provided Scott. It was expira- further that Dr. W. at the years, private sаle, tion of public five sell at or could the stock re- maining hands, any remaining pay his to balance him due at that time. good many
A stockholders had executed notes in payment preferred stock, understanding they for their with the should Land,” Accordingly, see the before their notes “Promised matured. by organized for excursion was the directors them and other by prospects. December, 1908, they In from went steamer Galveston Tampico, up to there small Soto La and from boats Marina party River. The went over some of the land horses and mules and Victoria, city capital taken the mountains to across place they Tamaulipas, miles, from which distance of about 100 City by appears rail. returned to Kansas the directors of the Development Company Brownsville, of a from had visions railroad Texas, Tampico, purchased which traverse the to would land railway proposed company S. W. Scott. This was shown D.r. Railways Mexico, evidence, introduced in map National on a proposed They line, indicated its route. also a dotted La Marina be great month the Soto harbor at the heard They President believed government. the Mexican constructed аlthough what assurances developments, in these to be interested Diaz they appear. Jt does came does not from what source had or prospects. of these heard improbable that the excursionists seem not City, Kansas Scott returned to any rate, when Dr. Annie At following letter: trip, wrote the enthusiastic this she Missouri. City,
“Kansas 22, 1909. “January Co., Ltd., Development Gulf & “Mexican City, “Kansas
‘‘Gentlemen: my trip over think get myself “Having settled had time I looked of land ever say the best tract is Mexico, beg to that this pleasure and affording much me so you for to thank I also wish at. for up my contract close say once to proceed at I wish beg to
1,000 acres. boundary
“The La Soto Marina which is river the northern your average is clear as can be must one mile about probably thirty deep. wide and Las feet Palmas river which boundary is the eastern is property this about one-fourth the larger width of the river. valley
“I think would the healthful climate which exists very any suffering trouble, be place lung would with one climate is many catarrh effeetions which this northern subject to. large I see climate,
“With this its soil and water no tract why good not investment and further be- reason this should be a you your at townsite lieve the location which have selected city very will attractive of those two mаke confluence rive.rs my places prove judgment most to live one of the beautiful *9 Republic of Mexico or elsewhere. in the sugar many raising onions, and the
“To me the idea of cane things. main tropical were the fruits very truly,
“Yours “(Signed) D'r. J. Scott.” Annie Realty a January Bargain Company executed deed .16,T909, On the This deed was recorded Addition to Dr. S. Scott. to the Kinloeh $10,000 and of January 26, 1909. a consideration on The deed recited conveyed subject! aggregating property deeds of trust Jo two the arrangement Dr. whereby S. given $5,700. pursuant The deed price, $10,000 purchase the due in lieu of accepted W. Scott it land, and Company the Mexican Development to him for from the Company. Development receipt this amount to a executed $9,900 paid aggregating transaction ofl: in
317 laying tbe town- engineers surveying out some were the land although it land, actually site and one man moved onto very a colonist. clearly employee is not shown whether he was by convey- began pay The for their services directors themselves re- in a suit for company’s ance of land. It was later claimed there ceivership brought against Development Company that families, оf their conveyed members had been to the directors and 42,000 something acres of the including wife, Dr. W. like Scott’s poorest was the company’s hardly probable is that all of this land. It land in the tract. making early part
In 1910 Dr. S. W. Scott succeeded (some origi- enough of the to the other directors himself troublesome by resigned replaced been others by time nal directors had this stock) they him, paying with him settled purchased who had amounting price purchase balance due on the 12,000 of the land for $85,000, conveying to his wife acres about money stock. This 1,000 shares of common surrender of his 14,000 per $5 at acre sale of some acres partly raised Scott, directors. Dr. people in New Mexico who became to some Development Company all its hands of thereafter, washed his engaged in the oil Oklahoma, where he became went to affairs and through corpo- operated successive business there His business. as- completely controlled and in some he he rations, some of these eventually him operations oil took with others. His sociated himself through still other operated California, also to where he seems to have corporations. suspend operations Development Company was forced to
The disturb- engineers in because of the Mexico and its withdrew government the Diaz in the overthrow of ance culminated they did began shooting, fact, In Revolutionists Madero. when the new directors of One of the not even wait instructions to leave. concerning ir- on company, who at the time business was there hotel, through his hearing whistle rigation concession, bullets after that, desire, way out, said had no car pullman and his closed, City were soon offices in Kansas go company’s The back. telephone bills, and the com- judgments rent and leaving unpaid Mexico, it was claimed Raton, New where pany’s books taken company seem to have The does not the trial. at the time of corporation reports made dissolved, had it formally neither been years preceding in Arizona for several fees due corporation paid nor litigation growing history corporation and out trial. appellate courts, to which we refer -in four reviewed has been of it Scott, namely: 205 S. Booth v. interested, those 1063; Roseberry Kan. 244 Pac. 217; 240 S. W. *11 318 Schwald,
Montgomery 831; v. App. 177 166 W. Scott 253 Booth, 475; 40 1020. Sup. U. S. L. Ed. 484; Ct. testified, June, Annie Dr. first met Dr. S. W. Scott Scott that she Hotel, at She the Densmore lived that time. said where she at Mrs. S. to that W. Scott first talked to her there introduced her and Dr. W. Her Dr. and Mrs. Scott. was to the effect that testimony frequently, S. W. Scott Hotel her at the Densmore and entertained they rented; stay daughter a house at later had her with their while grand they away; relationship tried to even to trace a her father; gained Dr. S. and her confidence. She said that thus Diaz; Development was a Scott told her that he that the friend paid up dollars; stock million advised to had of one her it; buy the stock land in that the land would be and take Mexico they irrigated; crops $500 worth an acre as soon as that raised four live; there; go year all Mexico to that onions would to they ground AAr.Scott she could have her next to the land Mrs. S. and daughter; he after it said her and that would look for her. She bought from him she the stock because her reliance these gave representations; that she delivered the notes she for the stock him; that, Mexico, back from she asked to and as soon came she stock, 1,000 preferred a deed for her but acres the land engineers no be until the had finished was told deeds could made sur veying.
Dr. Dr. S. W. Annie Scott testified to conversations with Scott Development Company went out and also after time he of the get concerning part, deed to the her efforts Mexican as follows:
“Q. you you Dr. Did stock to at the time ever offer this your Yes, A. made to take the land? sir. election “Q. A. I Tell what said and done? offered it to the court was early part I in the him—the last time offered it to Building He had going into then. and he was the Commerce said, money bad; company. I ‘I so drawn And need been out I my give my me land.’ and back And I Avish would take stock you ’ ‘ ‘ said, get it. He I said, Ridge $150 I owe I will sell and Mr. and They anything do with it now. company and 1 can’t am out value,’ mismanaged he company it has no merchantable but go $50 would worth as soon as get the land the land be said He make me rich and said he put on it. said it would water said, back. ‘Don’t bother about stock— want the stock He didn’t said, I ‘I am your him the ditches and he get land.’ asked about going company now and I am those and see out felloAvs on there.’ they put water A. I think that? it was the middle of DbaN: When was “MR. 1910. F’ebruary probably,
“Q. you. Did talk IYes, with'Dr. Scott more about it? A. talked with every him I time him. met you Court: Did meet him often? A.
“The I did the first few years up to my 1913. Then I going thought note was I due. n ought get my due; fell before that I Dr. Scott so called then up, and me they tоld inwas I asked when he would Oklahoma and" be back said he back, would’t be that he was down there the oil Then I McGeehan, surveyed business. call went to who had ground in 1913 pick and he him what he out said would be *12 good ground I for me.. a presi- wanted for it and deed went to the dent the company and all said, went to and ‘I want'my them deed,’ they said,.‘"We going meeting and to have are of the board of directors we will making you and I see about a deed’ and waited year get about didn’t my and deed. In meantime I called Dr. again Scott’s house said he was in Oklahoma b-ut-final- somebody ly day I met him good one and he said he had some oil stock to sell. said, you He ‘The isn’t war over and when war yet is over are going get rich; to going we are to bore for oil on he said it.’ And making good money oil; he was in and I kept waiting, Oklahoma on finally when the war broke out here "and there wasn’t much Miami, business here I down Oklahoma, went to to build houses. some buy I started to corporation some little lots that had a them. title to City I Avent up down to Oklahoma to up look the titles and looked good the Scott Oil Company company. and found out it was a spoke people finally about Dr. Scott so Miami up Scott came to I came out and asked him about the Kinloch Addition and he-said any they got couldn’t me then he make deed until case the Booth ' way; they out that then would make theme deed. "Who make 'A. would the deed? was to Whoever’ “The Court: n - (cid:127) make them. “Q. A. property Deed to what? either tu Kinloch Deed —then money I said, bad; had.my I ‘I so I wish 'Arid need Kinloch back".’ said, begin .you ‘As as we down there, he soon to bore for oil will ’ I City in richest woman the world.’ back Kansas came up 1918 and Dr. wasn’t and I Mr. here to see MeLin. went Somebody attorney ms he was told the Mexican Gulf Land & ‘I Development Co., said, and he wouldn’t advise client of mine make a in the stuff xintil after the is deed Mexico Booth ease settled.’ get I
“Anyway deed until my couldn’t after Booth case was up Then in a man here I tried to settled. .from-Texas .and get him my a deal with and tried the name make man deed. .A something, "he if he do I Holton—he said would see so couldn’t they going were up Mr. Schwald and he told me to have went hunt meeting day Then 1 went to May. of the directors the first meeting going up they to attend some stockholders to see if were get a won’t said, Booth ‘You up and went and saw Mrs. and she . . Mr. Prince.’ . go up You and see deed. had better Scott) In 3917 I met him (Dr. “In 1915 him here. met Building Kansas in Oklahomа. In front the Commerce living in oil business and was City, was in the Dr. Scott said he Oklahoma. anything about the Booth case
“Q. said Now said—was what was Building? time in front of the Commerce at that said, sued them and he Mrs. Booth had “I him I heard that told Supreme said, Court.’ And he appealed her ‘We beat but she That commerce.’ because we do interstate will beat her there ‘We they anything with them because have to do case wouldn’t the Booth business. did interstate my property Kinloeh I him about 1916. asked “That was going over to make the the war said
he money. plenty have I would ditches and ‘‘ you ? company he tell was out of the : When did The Court part February 1st of latter in 1910—the “That was March. *13 my property or back. I told him my land “I him I wanted told 1916, Building in of the Commerce 1917 and in front in Miami in February March, my property I back or that wanted 1910 in and in I wait 'on handle that and couldn’t the other. I could because yours. say you? “Q. expression What did he to That was go- company was and he was He told me that he out A. then ing put them on and then I would after them and make the water ground money. woman that be worth a lot be a rich because would say A. “Q. did he the next time? He said that What the war they put was so bad that couldn’t men down there to work when everybody getting by еverybody else. was killed
“Q. anything Was said about the outcome the Booth case? anything “In Miami I asked him about that and said if hap- he you get your ‘if I will pened, get your or don’t Mexico land going anything back, you,’ I am not to take from and I didn’t think he would. you
“Mr. DeaN: you That is what he said to didn’t think anything? No, he A. I would take didn’t think he He would. man. nice “Q. your property, He had deed to the Kinloeh didn’t he? A. I know, kept telling but going give wanted, me he was I me what right, and he was because the going war was on. “Q. you rely upon Did these statements Dr. Scott made
you? Why, A. always good course. He had been to me.” Dr. Annie Seott testified that first knew that Mrs. Booth had she Development sued Dr. S. W. Seott and the other directors of the opinion in 1914. The of this court the Booth ease was 4, Í918, handed June and transfer to the Court Banc was down en Dr. September 16, any denied on 1918. S. W. Seott denied that place. Annie took He conversations testified to Dr. Seott ever selling anything that he to with her stock denied had do or that whatever, representations he made to her but claimed that she go asked his advice and he told her to see land Mexico and bought. for herself before she Dr. and Mrs. S. W. Seott and their daughter all' denied entertained Dr. Annie Scott at the Densmorе or in their home Hotel and testified that Mrs. W. Scott daughter City during and her not even in Kansas times. these was, however, guests shown former servants Dr. and other Annie Seott did come to talk to Dr. 'S. W. Scott at his about house had, Mexican affairs and that occasions, she some these been at meals there. pendens
After May, this suit and a Us 1920, deed, were filed property, dated June Kinloeh to the S. W. Dr. Scott will, daughter to his in August, wife and was recorded 1920. We though therefore, Dr. consider this ease as the title remained in conveyance Prior Dr. S. W. Seott. the time this mortgages aggregating paid $5,700, which were liens conveyed against the land when Annie Scott it to him. also He paid spent im- all taxes and claimed to have considerable amounts to prove it but whether not increased the value shown. not. stock, Development which Dr. Annie Scott received from the Company, possession was at the time of the trial in the of Mr. attorney. got Guthrie, pos- who her She had been testified that he session of it on March 1910. This was soon after the time she reconvey it back prop- said Dr. S. W. Seott refused to take her erty. that, Some time before she had delivered the certificates to security $150. another man as for a loan of Mr. Guthrie advanced stock, got possession promising her of this up $35 more and take *14 Spaulding Realty $150. The stock was transferred to the and the Company, corporation, plaintiffs Investment a which was one of the brought in preferred in suit on behalf the stockholders against original incorporators Dr. S. W. the other and and subsequent sought directors, $150,000 in which it was to recover from Development them for appointed Company. and to have receiver the alleged petition Spauling in the in that case that Com- the pany owner of stock was the the issued to Annie Scott. Mr. attorneys plaintiffs. firm Guthrie’s were for the Annie the Dir. Scott as a witness at the trial that case. was unable testified She get possession of the stock certificates from Mr. Guthrie and to however, She, in her was tried. stated suit when this them
tender equity as de- may do such the court willing to “is she petition that trial, prior overruling to the of her but after the years Two cree.” in of restitution of the trial, offer stock she filed motion for new possession of it and tendered it. Other she now had stated she which in page case, this eight-hundred record by facts, shown in opinion. hereinafter noted material, will be are deemed pleadings so we will tо not refer is raised as to question No up, among set answer other to note that defendant’s except them by the was barred Statute of Limi- plaintiffs’ action defenses, that Re- Statutes now Section 1305, Revised tations, Section plaintiffs to, failed and unable 1929, and that vised Statutes Develop- to Dr. S. W. Scott the amount he credited the to, restore plaintiffs’ indebtedness; ment in cancellation and that reply plaintiffs’ up estoppel-to set invoke the Statute Limitations possession the defendant been adverse for and denied judgment years. plaintiffs rights was that had no ten entered dismissed, bill be in a in the and that their but memorandum findings opinion upon controverted filed Chancellor’s issues judgment fact his conclusions of law were set out. From this and plaintiffs appealed. have by following shown portions
The Chancellor’s views are his opinion: memorandum say
“I that S. W. Scott was free procuring do not from fraud in In the I necessary said deed. view take this not case is me procured plaintiff’s to find whether or not S. W. Scott subscription company, practiced to or upon the stock fraud her either procuring subscription said execution of said deed. But for I purposes this shall decision assume that S. W. pro- plaintiff’s subscription to the stock company, cured and that doing; practiced upon fraud in so her and practiced also that he upon procuring fraud her in the execution of deed. I assume also plaintiff could have W. the deed to S. .rescinded Scott had she promptly moved in proper manner. void, But deed was not merely voidable, by plaintiff it was set timely aside proper purpose. action company
“The indebtedness to S. valid, Scott was incurred virtue of a contract made between W. Scott company Texas, not therefore covered the Booth case. except not Plaintiff could have rescinded the deed in some manner affording opportunity S. "W. Scott an to have restored to him the upon amount credited him said indebtedness. may objection plaintiff’s a fatal be,
“But however attempt quiet said her set aside deed and title the land conveyed therein, too attempt is that the came late. Plaintiff’s suit for that purpose instituted than more eleven the execution *15 brought within ten after the been deed; have it should tbe . the deed. execution of overwhelming in this is to the effect that de- evidence case
“The always place his residence or usual abode maintained fendant during all the family maintained his therein City; that he Kansas assuming pur- action for the cause of plaintiff’s time after accrued— of action—that defendant plaintiff that had a cause poses of this case time, kept someone over the open all such thereat kept said residence years upon process whom service of could have been age fifteen by law. Under these circumstances Statute provided had as right run, plaintiff’s complain ceased to to Limitations never plaintiff petition, herein ex- barred when the filed her herein was urged plaintiff. in behalf of cept for some other reason quiescence by her into “Plaintiff testified that defendant lulled of Mrs. assuring if the Booth case was decided favor her her, plaintiff’s prayed plain- land to to would return Booth, he testimony This the decision of the Booth case. tiff wait until to defendant, by supported and his denial is all the contradicted litigation part. which history of this ease is a Outside of the plaintiff, no in- bare there is circumstance evidence statement dicating plaintiff, ever offered to return the to that defendant indulgence. plaintiff for It is true that did wait asked her bringing suit, decision of the Booth cаse before but there is no testify plaintiff such evidence—even does not decision —that convey back the land to her. fair in- she asked defendant The plaintiff until ference is that waited the decision the Booth case reason, bring of her own for the because that without a suit ’’ not the Booth decision she did care venture suit her own. solely upon trial It will be seen that the court’s decision was based ground action plaintiffs’ was barred the Statute of Limi (276 held the Booth case 205 W. tations. This court 633) Development Company absolutely the acts of parties, it, relief, who void and that dealt with were entitled to against incorporators though partners, corporation as its as no permit formed. Our law does not been fraud feasor to be hide corporate Crossley, form. 305 Mo. l. hind c. [Meir say Appellants that there are facts in this record 882.] which in the which appear validity did not Booth ease show of the cor poration purpose incorporators. honest of its We, however, and the nothing in this record leads us to doubt find the correctness sold, purpose for which the Booth case. The the stock was so $150,000 concerned, least, get far Dr. S. W. Scott was at public. money All Develop for himself from the received paid inveigle was either Scott or was used to ment money, him, public. corporation from the was void. 11 *16 Dr. S. by which manipulations the to hide mere smoke screen was a market good apparently without money for land obtained W. Scott intentionally aiding and incorporators were other value. Whether the public or money from the obtaining abetting in this Dr. S. W. Scott purported When the merely immaterial here. duped him is were Dr. for business, with Scott contracted commenced and corporation nothing than more land, consisted purchase the its assets the opera When it ceased atmosphere. visionary and rarefied scheme nothing. exactly it tions it what started had with— not have convincing that the venture could is indeed The evidence A cor- business Revolution in Mexico. succeeded if there had been no income capital without poration operate no without and can more up by gravitation pull himself defy than man can the laws of n Revolution, Dr. S. W. straps. his own boot Before there was gone had money Scott had his and a substantial slice of the land and display other in which to talents. Much of the rest seek fiеlds his No parceled of the for their services. land had been out to directors pay people, whose reserve had ever been established to back the W. money, paid preferred stock, pockets for filled the Dr. selling Scott. There is no reason to believe that Dr. S. W. Scott was Development worth, land to the for less than it was and, certainly, way possible company there was no shown for the irrigation. have ever had funds for sufficient got nothing except Plaintiffs therefore property for the Kinloch piece paper, preferred a void and worthless stock certificate. The notes which gave Dr. Development Annie Scott Com- pany, it, for wholly without which consideration. The credit Dr. S. W. purported give Development Company for canceling was, concerned, these notes therefore, so far as he merely gesture. a useless purpose Since the sole of this cor- void poration, while Dr. W. it, get Scott was connected with was to $150,000 public for Dr. S. W. it made no difference money whether property, preferred stock, or received went first company to the Scott; and then to Dr. or whether it went direct him, place, plaintiffs’ first еquities did land. situation are only not difficult to determine. The conclusion we can reach is that the result, of the transaction between S. W. Scott plaintiffs, was that Dr. plaintiffs’ S. W. Scott obtained Kinloch property by fraud and without consideration. being
This true, plaintiffs’ right of conveyance action to cancel the land, recover plaintiffs’ accrued when deed was delivered to Dr. S. January, Kober, Scott in (2d) 1909. [Kober It was shown that took possession property 149.] rented it year dairyman. neighboring that' to a From time until this suit was plaintiffs posses- commenced were never sion. Plaintiffs possession contend that of Dr. S. W. Scott was continuous, kept not but the all evidence shows he at times either employees fenced and had it rented or had his own there mak ing therefore, improvements. was, Plaintiffs’ action barred under Section provides: Revised Statutes action for “No recovery any lands, hereditaments, tenements or for the commenced, recovery possession thereof, of the shall be had or main by any person, . . . appears tained plaintiff, unless it that the ancestor, predecessor, grantor his person or other under whom he possessed claims question, was seized or premises within ten before the commencement of such action.” This statute provides the limitations fraud, for real action. Failure to discover by which a defendant obtained or acts a defendant *17 concealing running fraud does not toll of the this statute. [Kober Kober, (2d) v. 23 S. W. 149, 152; l. c. Casner, Parish v. 282 S. W. 392, 409; l. c. Claybrook, v. 204 Turnmire 178, S. W. l. c. This 179.] applies statute actions, they were, alike to all whether before the enact ment of Code, legal equitable. the or Kober, called 23 v. S. [Kober (2d)W. 149, and cases These concerning rules actions to cited.] recover real estate have been Rogers Brown, settled ever since v. 61 Mo. 187. In discussing actions, such said, Rogers this court in case, the 61 :
Mo. l. c. 192 “But say the statute any does not if person to com- entitled mence an action recovery for the of property real any on account of fraud, any shall ignorant for time be of the facts constituting such fraud, ignorance that the time such shall not be deemed to abe portion of the time limited action, the commencement of such and that may such action be commenced within ten after the discovery of the fraud.” points
The court only out that exception applicable to real ac- tions, party other than where is under a disability, following: is the “ ‘If person, by absconding concealing or himself, any- improper act, prevent other the commencement action, of an such may action be commenced within the limited, time herein after the commencement of such action shall have prevented.” ceased to be so 879, R. Sec. S. [Now 1929.]
This section sections, and several other commencing with Section 875, specifically provide relate to both real per actions, sonal are included under IX Article of the “General Code” 1929, the revision of entitled “Personal Actions and General Pro ’’ visions. Originally, 1855, the revision there were three articles relating to I, Actions; limitations: Article Real II, Article Personal Actions III, and Article General Provisions. The two latter have since been consolidated. Rogers Brown, The court in v. supra, after dis cussing cases, former Hunter, such as Hunter v. 50 445, Mo. English cases, in which it was that, equity held cases based on
326 until the run Limitations not commence to did fraud, Statute said, l. c. 194: discovery fraud, Statute present and the adoption of the code “Prior Hunter v. doctrine, in the equity as stated case Limitations, the undoubtedly ,>(cid:127)but it we do nоt conceive obtained Hunter, incorporated in may have been farther be found to now, rule than it 879, R. S. quoted.” 24th section above provisions [Sec. 1929.] Clarenbach, 310, 61 Mo. held, v. case of Reisse This court provided in Section act” indicating “improper what would be of a that, concealment deed 879, 1929, Statutes while Revised would might “improper act” which creditors be such an defraud Limitations, soon as that as postpone running of the Statute of notice all the world had put record, it the creditors and time, to required years, from set it act within ten of Limita been, consistently, that the Statute It has held aside. at law and suits in tions, actions, applies to real actions alike to land. equity, purpose possession [Dunn which is to recover 640; Sammelman, 101 Miller, 9 v. Mo. 324, v. 96 Mo. S. W. Hoester 118, 490; 28 W. 619, 728; Adams, 125 Mo. S. 14 W. Potter v. 289; Marshall v. Abernathy, v. 234 Mo. 136 S. Summers Annuity Realty 131; Co., Hill, Zeitinger 151 Mo. S. W. l. Co., (2d) 1035; Young Tel. 28 W. l. c. v. Southwestern Bell (2d) of Limita And that Statute 381.] convey begins to run from the time there is actual notice of tions *18 [Hughes Littrell, 75 ance from the is recorded. v. or time the deed 5; Whitaker, 342, 58 573; Mo. Whitaker 157 Mo. S. W. Hudson v. Moore, 123, v. 256 Cahoon, 547, 72; 193 Mo. 91 S. W. Faris v. 178; 311; 165 Claybrook, S. W. v. 204 S. W. Parish v. Turnmire 282 Casner, W. S. 292.] Dr. Scott, course,
In this case of knew Dr. W. Scott Annie S. possession went into him in of her under the deed she mаde January, might during 1909. well his his We construe conduct Development Company “improper connection with the as acts” which “prevented” suit, the of but commencement this knew that he she February, sold 1910. Development Company out and left the in Her testimony own is him, that time with that at she had conversation in value, which he told her stock that the no merchantable had and She, give back refused to take her back how stock her her land. ever, years failed to suit commence within ten after that time. Even 879, if that, plaintiffs’ we held under Section action was not barred years, plaintiffs until ten after this demand refusal of Dr. and land, brought S. AAr.Scott to return still in the this suit was not time. afterwards, It indefinite, true that Dr. W. then is S. and made evasive and unreasonable statements about the of the land value if irrigated, in Mexico, ceased it wars was and oil was found if if
327 it, prevented by plaintiffs on but it is clear that were not such state Cook, bringing 498, Burrus v. 215 Mo. ments from suit. [See brought A W. suit was behalf of all stockholders 1065.] Development Company in which Dr. Annie Scott tes stock, tified. In plaintiffs, this case her transferred one of was to stockholders, used, in with connection other the basis for put Development Company action to and receivership into $150,000 for prеferred recover the benefit of the stockholders W. Dr. S. petitions Scott his associates. The in that successive alleged case most acts of Dr. W. the fraudulent Scott and the incorporators other Development referred herein to including doing and in ease, the Booth in this business State without legal authority. acting Guthrie, attorney Mr. who as her at that stock, brought time and possession had her suit. The fact may pending that that suit was explanation subsequent be the of her litigation inaction. That was not terminated until after Booth case was court. decided this dismissed in for want of prosecution. knew, brought She that Mrs. Booth had suit to given recover what Development she had for her stock in the Com pany. The Booth 1912. case was commenced in even more She had months, than decided, seven against after the Booth case was court, S. W. incorporators, bring Scott other in this suit, years conveyed within ten from the time she her bring she a year, that, more it, than within ten from the time Dr. S. refused to return her land 1910. February, This case does not come within exception running was, therefore, Statute Limitations of Real Actions. Her action statute, Legislature, our barred prescribing enacted limi liberty tations for actions to recover real estate and we are not at exceptions (2d) Kober, 149; insert it. v. 23 S. W. Parish [Kober Casner, 392; 282 S. W. v. Claybrook, Turnmire S. W. 178.] “Equity vigilant, the maxim aids not those who slumber on their rights” principle is the which underlies Statutes of Limitations. [21 C. public J. sec. It is also a policy matter of that land 180.] titles be settled. statute, by
Plaintiffs seek the bar pleading avoid that de estopped They fendant was to assert as a defense. claim that Dr. Scott, by representations fraudulent promises, fraudulent *19 quiescence lulled Annie into and her obtained forbearance commencing against considering him. In from suit this feature of finding Chancellor, we with the casé are confronted the of the ad plaintiffs, Although facts. equity verse to on the this court hears an merits, it is findings ease novo on the the'rule to defer the ele against Chancellor, they weight.of evidence, the where are not the the especially personally appeared where the him witnesses before credibility Russell, (2d) 44 is [Blackiston their involved. v. S. W.
328 W. S. Norton, 43 9; v. Bailey, 44 W. Norton 22; (2d) v. S. Friedel 274 (2d) 1024; W. Crockett, Kent v. S. 460.] though verbal, not agreement, even If makes an a defendant party the other Limitations, plead in consideration the Statute of obtaining until estopped, forbearance forbearing sue, he is pleading the statute. run, period from afterwards limitation has the Herring 555; v. S. Munroe [Bridges 524, 132 Mo. 34 W. Stephens, v. Ry. 1002; & Grand Island 509, Joseph St. ton, 110 85 W. App. Mo. S. 680; J.C. 203 37 Co., 432, S. W. App. Co. v. 199 Elwood Grain Mo. note; 63 L. 756, 243; 17 9 Ann. Cas. 726, 44; 884, sec. R. C. L. sec. gives party another assurance 201, Likewise, R. A. a where note.] given accepted will and credit controversy a in be certain claim giving party, such accounts, the therefor, on of mutual settlement has of Limitations assurance, thereafter, the Statute cannot when as item, Limitations against disputed run invoke the Statute of 55; Mo. Goss, App. 65 Dry v. Mo. a defense. Goods Co. [Swofford Our Co., App. 71 Mo. Ry. Pac. Co. v. Coombs Commission 299.] 862, actions, Stat Bevised personal Limitations of Section Statute of concealment, prevents such actions 1929, in utes cases fraud discovery fraud. being postponing from accrual until barred party has held a es- Other have arisen this court situations where topped by up limitations as a defense. conduct to set Co., Mo. 145 Millinery 309,
In v. Rosenthal-Sloan Sonnenfeld wrongful of a corporation, possession 430, an officer in note, led refused allow the owner to see believe hereto commenced corporation signed had it. The and not owner against note, after personally produced suit officer and he corpora the Statute of had run. It was executed Limitations only. subsequent suit corporation, tion held that the against it, estopped up to set the Statute Limitations defense. 23,
In McFarland, put v. 211 W. McFarland widow was possession given therefrom, agree profits land and under oral recognition ment children, between herself and her of her dower right. they years After oral repudiated eleven contract and dis- seized court estopped pleading her. This held were assignment of Limitations Al Statute to her action for of dower. though upon both estoppel, of these cases ruled doctrine estoppel might it seems that the acts held to have create well “improper preventing been construed be an act” the commence action, statutory period, ment of within the to in Sec referred 879, may 1929. tion Bevised said cases like Statutes same McMurray McMurray, 701, v. Prewitt Prewitt, 188 Mo. 87 S. W. which were suits to establish resulting plaintiff trusts and which held that a ten
329 by money discovery fraudulent use his bring suit, after of the name. purchase land and take title in his own defendant to Chancellor, finding here, that there was of the However, under case, agreement of the Booth and under the no to await the outcome showing knowledge facts, by Scott, sufficient, Annie evidence rights, say least, put upon inquiry as to her we cannot at her estopped plead the Statute Limitations to this defendant brief, Plaintiffs, in their contend that to recover real estate. action land, they though to recover the should even not entitled have judgment par for the stock. lien on it or a value of the vendor’s action, which if brought, and, was this Neither of those actions been, by likewise either them had it would be barred the Statute Limitations. Ferguson, GC., judgment Sturgis, affirmed. concur. is by foregoing opinion Hyde, C., adopted is PER CURIAM: The judges All concur. opinion of the court. of the as the Rehearing. On Motion for rehearing HYDE, Appellants grounds, ask a on several which C.- which, light again carefully considered, and we have
we have record. reviewed the whole ’ main Appellants reasons are included three contentions: Realty Bargain from to Dr. First: That the deed absolutely void; by no passed W. Scott was title to the land S. it; that, therefore, position gone his is as if the same into possession without deed. possession That Dr. S. "W. Scott was not
Second: under cоlor title; right to the could not that his be established con- following only by possession continuous, actual, but structive the deed possession; and that not pos- adverse the evidence does show that his session was continuous. though appellants Third: That even were barred limitation certificate, recovery yet, ap- since the stock obligation
pellants received, pay was a written a definite sum of brought money appellants having years, in five this action in less years, matured, ten after the same should be than entitled to have stock) (par value of the established debt as a vendor’s lien purchase price. land as the A proposition: procured As first deed to the fraud will set be 227, 147; fraud vitiates all contracts. C. J. aside because sec. [18 146; Mentzer, (2d) 30 W. Wann, Mentzer v. Wilkerson v. 322 Mo. 72; 842, (2d) Abernathy, 16 234 156, S. W. Summers v. Mo. 136 Donahoe, 632; 289; Derby 106 v. Turner Turner, procured by 44 Mo. A deed ordinarily fraud is held 535.] procured by voidable and the same is true of a deed undue influence may J. Sucli ratified. sec. a deed duress. C. [18 175.] 178; City Co., v. Kansas Tel. C. sec. Wood Home J. [18 *21 (Mo.), Un 6; Bray 229 537, Mo. 123 v. Haskins W. S. W. S. 1074.] been their it doubtedly, appellants could have -ratified deed had injured advantage reason, so. One.who has been to their to do by the by always right the the accept fraud has to situation created may repudiate trans damages; or he the fraud and seek to recover 128; thing 18, State specific lost. C. J. action and the [27 recover (2d) Indeed, that Cary 43 W. (Mo.), ex rel. v. Trimble S. 1050.] by right effect, the above appellants, is the claim third contention ratified, by person made referred to. A which can be who deed only absolutely void it, Examples of deeds ordinarily, is voidable. mentally (Hall by incapacitated permanently are: Deeds one made 825; Vining Ramage 3 (Mo.), v. Almond 137 S. E. v. S. W. (Ga.), (2d) forged (18 224, 138; J. Pickett 721); deeds C. sec. Neal v. 748) ; signature fraudulently pro 280 (Tex.), W. deeds to which is S. signing (Horvath grantor had no v. cured when intention of deed 202, (Mich.), holding 213 N. Mortgage Natl. Co. W. this amounts to 316, 582; forgery). See, also, notes 14 A. R. 56 A. R. L. L. by procured been deeds which have otherwise fraud without valid 1071; delivery. Sheriff, 110, 108 18 Mo. W. v. S. Meador v. [Pitts Light (Mo.), 107; Delaney W. (Mo.), Ward 260 S. v. 263 W. S. 813.] anjr However, appellants must, that event, we think on fail their statute, may proposition. second be noted here that the Section 850, 1929, recovery years Statutes bars after Eevised ten seized, appellants possessed time premises. when were Ap they pellants possession admit that went out of they conveyed when immediately the land Dr. W. Scott. put tо S. He men work to Davidsons, dairy it and thereafter rented people, went who possession into him under and used the entire tract pasturing their Appellants cows. seek to avoid their failure possession to be in transaction, or to disaffirm years, that time their within ten by the contention there were times when Dr. S. W. Scott was possession not in actual that at ap- such times the pellants, being true owners, must be considered to been in have possession. constructive This is upon contention based the conten- tion absolutely to Dr. W. void; deed Scott was possession therefore constructive followed ap- the title back pellants (evidently appellants without knowledge, since claimed no possession paid no attention during years) land those n wheneverhis actual possession ceased. The cases of possession failure show adverse cited appellants, to-wit, Perkins, 602, Stone v. 217 720; Mo. 117 Hays S. W. v. 119; Pumphrey, Co., 226 Mo. v. Kingsolving Laswell 300 S. Lbr. 506; 7Wells, (2d) Jamison v. S. W. are all eases where the case, slight. acts of ownership very However, in the latter where 331 (250 W. deed, appeal tax on first under a plaintiff claimed void possession than evidence adverse 63), held much weaker this court finding jury for thе to make of ten case was sufficient that in this opinion in that years possession. We also find continuous adverse 348) (7 (2d) S. W. l. c. : following statement ownership can asserted than the act of
“No more affirmative rents plaintiff and the collection rental of the land different times of the same fences at thereon. The inclosure are, on the in addition to payment of taxes due land and the facts, possession. actual potential persuasive evidence of other more 593; Boughton, Perkins, [Phillips v. Mo. Stone 117 S. W. 717.]” Dr. S. he did not W. Scott said remember which While D<avidsons, up leased to the but would have to look it through tell, possession claim he did that he was in either his tenants *22 employees or at all was of his times. There also the evidence Mrs.
Davidson, Mrs. of his of Scott, of S. W. foreman others who had evidence, showing been on the land. We think the of instead of W. that abandonment Dr. S. shows he exer- was cising ownership acts of over It shown extensive it. was that when was off appellants deed delivered moved a real estate which office they land; built on the S. W. immediately that Dr. took possession cut; and had the brush cleared and trees that the David- years; sons then it for or rented for cash rent two that it three then higher was at rental rented to cattle man who also used it for pasture; Dr. S. stopped renting it, W. Scott then that and from it, 1916 1918 improving employing large to was at times force of rock, men several quarry grade with teams to fill it, ravines put selling lots; it condition into that Trespass- he had “No ing” sign land; it, on the built a barn keep that he on which to used; the teams that his looked after it paid wife bills for the away, work he was done, when and that after this was work the idea selling given up, seeded, lots was the land a new fence was it, again built he it pasture. around rented to the Davidsons for During expended the course this work he claims to have more only that, than two thousand dollars. He not did but in 1911 and which, 1913 paid mortgages against off he the two the land with the paid, interest he amounted to almost seven thousand dollars.
hardly that, doing reasonable this, seems he abandoned it when was clear all encumbrances. Dr. W. Scott paid S. also all the taxes due on the which averaged year. about per one attorney hundred dollars had an He necessary examine the title and “getting do what was the title shape” guarantee so a titl,e company would it. The evidence was increasing value, throughout thаt the land was time, the entire delivery appellants’ between the deed and the commencement
332 claim that really his ¿this controverts that is no evidence suit. There minimizes Appellants’ evidence possession at all times. was in building he made; shows improvements he claims have material; that the old fence cheap shows put the land was made (which, how- was built the new one places before many was down in made) ; being improvements been when the ever, seems to have anything dispute his appellants did ever but does not show possession doing w'ay what he was with with or interfere when Dr. Annie long suit filed. Even after this the land until land,' did so under a possession of the she deed Scott did take it was Dr. S. W. Scott because necessarily recognized the title of sale. convey an execution attempt his title under based on an say finding of the able and evidence, we cannot that the Under this it, appellants were not seized chancellor, experienced who heard years before commence- possessed premises or within ten (cid:127) constructively) actually was unwar- (either of this action ment not be deferred to. ranted and should appellants be sustained. The proposition Nor can the third powers equity are limited to the are broad but a court power to pleadings. The issues made cause of action and give prayed to that for means relief consistent with relief in addition 854; 555, 338; Spindle 10 L. 671, R. C. sec. the suit C. J. sec. tried. [21 281, l. 24; Early, Black 208 Mo. 10, 152 W. v. 32, v. 247 Mo. S. Hyde, 684, 155; 175 1014; v. 75 S. W. Patton, Schneider 313, 106 c. 1089; 682, 12 14 21 62, 347, S. W. J. Bott, 100 Mo. S. W. C. Reed Bank, 849, 315 Mo. Dairy Co. v. Northwestern 858; sec. Grafeman 338; 861; 359; 21 C. J. sec. 10 R. L. sec. C. Sup. 35 L. Stockton, 773; Ct. Ed. Reynolds v. U. 474.] *23 require grant appellants’ a decree that asked for would To the relief title; conveyance respondents of the was a v'alid are the deed it, appellants but still for, land owe because owners of the sued purchase price; stock certificate was the that it par value of the (and obligation incorporators) W. Scott the other an of Dr. S. paid; not and that a lien for and w'as the amount due impressed obligation be on the land as a this should vendor’s lien granted only Such relief could in a purchase price. for the be suit appellants’ an affirmance of deed Dr. S. 'W. Scott. The based on on of it. It would based present is based a disaffirmance be on suit upon no based on sale. Such a suit would be the- sale. This one is conveyence accept aрpellants had elected to theory that as they received a valuable of title for considera valid transfer (and obligation namely: Dr. S. W. Scott tion, the other in- years corporators) partnership in five and enforceable due a theory upon appellants present suit is obligation. entitled to recover repudiated transaction and were the land they got nothing may Appellants because it. have had of value for right timely proceed the theory. to make a either choice remedies
It proceed is well settled on both. cannot is statute, requiring true that to recover suit brought years losing within possession, arbitrary ten is rule. Legislature eight years It was within power to make it years. years may hardship in fifteen That it w'as work a made ten regretted. Legislature However, case and that did is to be period power change fix the it. at ten and this court has no rehearing The motion for is therefore overruled. at the Relation of Lund Incorporated, Sager,
State & Missouri Jerry Judge Corporation, of Division No. Mulloy, (2d) 1. St. Louis. 49 W. County Circuit Court One, April 16, 1932.
Division E. & L. Brachman Versen relator. A. Gardner and This full notes given Development Company pre- for her Annie Scott had said, re- howevеr, stock. were never ferred She the canceled notes secretary The to her not shown what became of them. turned and it is arrangement, Development Company for the said this of the Dr. W. Scott therefor from payment her notes and the credit president Company, and the Development was made himself to the company. of the Mexican The land was described in detail Dr. S. W. Scott and original several Development Company. directors of the Some of it, least, valley at seems very fertile, to have land, although been rocky there were ridges some through parts of it. The confluence eighteen two rivers was about miles from the Gulf and Mexico beyond up the tides came point. dry very The climate and necessary it was irrigate land in order to farm it to its capacity. They said, full corn, lowland would cotton raise and frijoles Tomatoes, grew without rain. oranges lemons and wild. A plant, henequin, known as from rope, which fibre for imitation silk and other produced, grew materials is anywhere land without irrigation. It was said to a plant Variety be of the cactus a and crop. engineers surveyed valuable One of the wdio the land said that about one-fourth it, 18,500 acres, irrigatеd could at a cost of per $25 pumping acre water from the the That river. as much 50,000 irrigated by building up acres of land dam, could be the river constructing above the to it. ditches The cost project except shown, such was not that it would cost than more merely pump water to the land. The land was one-fourth of most- ly wild, undeveloped in a state. The were covered with lowlands mesquite uplands good with cactus and the deal of timber. ebony trees, There some but were small their value wild populated chiefly seems to be The with doubtful. land was deer, game. turkey pigs. original There "were wild One trip who directors made a to the land said that he went down to cool, changed of the but his river, take a swim the clear waters allegator mind -whenhe saw that an was there first. Development a concession the Mexican The secured rights required government irrigation in 1910. It the works to be department of the completed pay within seven and to State located, Tamalipas, per $400 month which the land was until however, Dr. W. completion This, work. was after company. his interest in the had sold out more sales resistance from the company appears to have met necessary by December 1909, and found during public year year During give mortgage office furniture. on its a chattel