*1 Louis, Corporation, Admin Bank of St. Boatmen’s National Hugh Thomasson, Appellant, v. G. A. istrator of the Estate W. Henry Stevens. 127 S. W. 438. and Richard Wurdeman April Two, Division 1939.

Edward appellant. 'G. Crow *2 respondents.

John A. Nolan enjoin WESTHUES, Appellant bank filed a suit to the sale of C. injunction A temporary real a deed of trust. sought, estate under was denied, had. appellant and a Thereafter which sale filed an seeking the cancellation of the petition deed, trustee’s given the deed of trust secure them. five and The trial court notes against appellant whereupon bank judgment appeal entered a taken. below, administrator of

Appellant, plaintiff the estate of Thomasson, The respondents, deceased. Hugh below, defendants W. Wurdeman, and deed of ques- owner notes trust in were G. A. sale, tion, purchaser property at the and Richard and Henry Stevens, and *3 others believed that after Thomasson left the home Mrs. of Bolles he Mahood, became with one infatuated Grace who was referred by “gold digger.” to as an or some witnesses “adventuress” Mrs. eventually Bolles became that alarmed this woman would all obtain January 1931, of property. 25, Thomasson’s On a filed deed was whereby conveyed for record Thomasson had some property to Grace appears It Mahood. that Thomasson and Grace had Mahood married. marriage That there was a valid was not parties, conceded all not even A filed Thomasson. suit was on his behalf annul to the mar- riage. a Reference to number of lawsuits between Thomasson and alleged his wife were referred to in the of case State ex rel. v. Holt- 608, Mo. kamp, (2d) 13, 330 51 S. W. which case'involved another insanity proceeding employed Thomasson. Mrs. Bolles the Stevens & Hoester Wurdeman, firm insanity of an proceeding and January 27, 1931, was instituted on in probate the court of St. Louis County. process had, No service of be or could upon notice served Thomasson, because could county.. he not be located Later,' within the February 13, 1931, proceeding the 17, 1931, dismissed. On March it reinstated Rogers, attorney on the docket. S. an C. who had represented legal'matters, in Thomasson some voluntary entered notice, ap- pearance for and of jury. Thomasson waived service and The immediately, case was heard adjudged Thomasson Was insane and the guardian court appointed person a over the- of Thomasson and his property. The record does not disclose that employed had Thomasson Rogers represent insanity in to him the proceedings, or that he author- appearance. history ized him enter -to his The of proceeding this and ’ Roger’s explanation entering for an appearance will be in found Holtkamp, 608, State ex rel. 330 Mo. 51 S. W. (2d) 13, l. c. 15. Denny, attorney, Thereafter Robert an perfected B. appeal, an' from 'judgment the in probate the court to the circuit court' While this' Denny, representing court Thomas- pending the circuit

appeal was son, Wurdeman, Iioester, representing Bolles, Stevens & Mrs. ne- and insanity gotiated proceeding. a dismissal of the The outcome of instrument, negotiations an these that Thomasson executed re- contract, ferred, whereby agreed it that to as an Mrs. annuits*- per during of month her life $100 receive the sum Bolles should provided had for sim- of Thomasson and at her death. will $500 executed Mrs. addition to this Thomasson payments to Bolles. In ilar notes, also deeds of trust each and some interest $2500 two notes of County payment. property Louis to secure their These notes on in St. Wurdeman, were payable pur- made Stevens & Hoester and attorney’s insanity an given proceeding. to be as fee in ported the This then with proceeding was dismissed the consent court. The defendant, court was not informed of the settlement. so-called Wurdeman, became the solé of $2500 owner one of these notes and the are interest notes which involved this Later died. suit. trustee, proceeded, through In due time Wurdeman to sell the forcing property purpose of of Plain- for the collection his notes. tiff, enjoin as administrator filed estate suit injunction Temporary the sale. and became denied Wurdeman purchaser property. duly petition Plaintiff’s sought meet confronting the new situation it and relief.- case, forth, suggests The statement of the as set above to a equity plaintiff granted court be the relief prayed for. should insanity In the place proceeding first not a suit to determine rights between the person against, informant and the informed personal judgment no can complainant. be in favor of rendered Guinotte, 14, In State ex rel. v. l. c. S. W. this quoted court following approval: with “ ‘The primary object *4 proceeding any of the not to par- is benefit n individual, ticular to hut see whether the fact of in'capacitjr mental exists, public, through courts, so that the the can take control. The petitioner, can derive no- advantage direct benefit The him, from it. to any, only if any is such as if person would result other had first acted ” in the matter.’ prime insanity

The purpose proceeding of an provide is to for the person alleged of be preserve to insane and property. the his welfare public directly The- also is interested. ex Holtkamp, rel. v. [State 608, ] (2d) 13, l. (14, 15). Mo. 51 W. c. 19 any 330 S. That individual advantage should attain alleged an the person over way insane in the gain foreign theory of is the to a proceeding. of pecuniary such 32 C. J. sec. It in was held ex State rel. v. Holtkamp and State ex v. Guinotte, supra, rel. insanity that an proceeding can be this not the dismissed without consent of the In court. case consent of However, the was obtained. was court the court not informed that whereby made a the pecuniary was informant settlement obtained a attorneys advantage alleged person'; tlie insane her over were that by alleged $5,000 notes, signed person. the given in insane Had the is the been so informed it unthinkable that case would court have any judgment probate such basis. been dismissed on of the insane, declaring was court, Thomasson void because no notice had supra, rel. Holtkamp, In State ex v. this court been served. held sanity person notice must be served on the whose that written the jurisdictional subject inquiry; of that notice is such and cannot be by attorney. an waived insanity proceeding cannot be prosecuted

An or used as a any to a of wedge pry real or claim a person settlement fancied may against alleged That, person. however, have insane was the insanity only purpose prompted the proceeding which here involved. clearly by testimony purpose This disclosed one attorneys representing being questioned Mrs. Bolles when he was as to why proceeding given: was instituted. Note the answer get

“Well, wanting she to some income from on his estate theory married, had might say recognized that the woman he I theory ‘gold digger,’ get as a and the she somebody would it all if else didn’t.” expresses point

That the true At another situation. the examina- attorney following this appeared: tion of “Q. you brought insanity You testified that this information to protect against get this woman so she all wouldn’t money? A. That was the ultimate idea.”

If idea carry that was the ultimate no effort made to it out. dismissed, Bolles, proceedings through when Mrs. a deed of property belonging guaranteed to trust on valuable annuity per notes, $100 month and $5000 secured deeds given attorneys. of trust to her just Thomasson was left where he prior to the proceeding, except had been institution of the that he property. had In words, been relieved some other the lamb was long from enough permit rescued the wolves to the rescuers to shear they wrhat fleece wanted then turned loose be fleeced others. It the contract insanity is evident that to dismiss the proceedings, whereby attorneys the informant her obtained the property men against tioned, public policy; was void as also that the notes and deeds given obtain trust such dismissal were void. Such contracts standing have recognize should no in court. To and enforce them open would the door fraud. Contracts have been held to be policy much public which were less vicious than the one now before Fry us. For a recent case Nute al., see et Mo. 125 S. W. *5 question where the being contracts public policy Jones, Porter was discussed. also In 13 Corpus Juris, 445, following: section we note the “Agreements impede regular calculated administration against public policy, are void as without reference justice contemplated employed are improper whether means or question general tendency agree- law looks to the of such their execution. to temptation refusing recog- it the door them ments, and closes ’’ any country. courts nition trial court is therefore with judgment of the reversed directions prayed for plaintiff court to enter decree as for in its Bottling, Cooley CC., concur. petition. foregoing opinion C., PEE CUEIAM:—The Westhues, judges All the opinion as court.

adopted concur. trustee the deed of trust. notes deed Thomasson, Hugh sought trust to be canceled were executed W. Stevens & Hoester. Wurdeman, payable firm of and made law and void in Appellant contends that the notes deed of trust were their attending execution, their for the most inception. circumstances means, part conceded, Hugh W. a man of were as follows: seventy years age than at the time the notes and more deed May 19, of trust were executed. That occurred on 1931. His nearest living He had home relations second cousins. been cousin, Louis, Missouri, a Mrs.- Bolles who lived in St. but left there year during sometime 1930. had executed a will provision wherein he had made some for Mrs. Bolles. That testament being contested at time this case was tried and withstood the .the upon assault made it. Townsend et al. Boatmen’s Natl. Bank al., et W. S. Mrs. Bolles