Hundley v. Neely, 2974
| Decision Date | 10 October 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 2974,2974 |
| Citation | 365 P.2d 196 |
| Parties | Elizabeth Hart HUNDLEY, Executrix of the Estate of William M. Hart, Deceased, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. Alabama NEELY, Appellee (Defendant below). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Robert R. Rose, Jr., Casper, for appellant.
Fred W. Layman, Casper, for appellee.
Before BLUME, C. J., and PARKER, HARNSBERGER and McINTYRE, JJ.
The subject matter of this action is a warranty deed pertaining to property in Casper, Wyoming. Said deed purports to name as party of the second part or grantee William M. Hart and Alabama Hart, his wife, or the survivor of them.
The plaintiff, as executrix of the estate of William M. Hart, deceased, contends that Alabama Hart was not a lawful wife to the deceased; that she was previously a common-law wife to a man by the name of Neely in St. Louis, Missouri, where common-law marriages are recognized; that she was not divorced from Neely and therefore her marriage to Hart was void. The executrix also claims that the deed was altered and forged by an addition of the words 'and Alabama Hart, his wife, or the survivor of them' at a time subsequent to the execution and delivery of the deed.
William M. Hart, as the only named purchaser, entered into a contract for deed covering the real estate in question on June 1, 1931 with the Nicolaysen Lumber Company as seller. The deed in question was dated August 13, 1942. It was recorded September 4, 1942. An expert witness called by the executrix testified that the name 'Alabama Hart' was added to the deed after its original preparation but with the same typewriter used in the original preparation. He pointed out that the letters in that name were not in alignment with other typing and that a malifunctioning of the letter 'A' in the typewriter had been repaired between the original preparation and typing of the name Alabama Hart.
As to the word 'and' appearing between the names of William M. Hart and Alabama Hart and the words 'his wife, or the survivor of them,' it was the expert's opinion that these words were added at still a different time because of a different ribbon being used. He could not say whether this was done with the same or a different machine.
William M. Hart and Alabama Hart were married February 18, 1926 and their certificate of marriage was in evidence. Unless such marriage was void for the reason advanced by plaintiff, they were husband and wife when the deed was executed, delivered and accepted.
There was no evidence to indicate that Alabama Hart participated in procuring the deed or procuring any alterations therein, or in recording the deed. She claims it was recorded by her husband and there is nothing to show the contrary. None of the witnesses were able to tell whether the words 'and Alabama Hart, his wife, or the survivor of them' were inserted in the deed before or after its execution by the grantor, or before or after its delivery.
If a change was made in the designation of the grantee or grantees, it was doubtless made at the instance of Hart himself. In 1955 he wrote to a realtor concerning his wife and the property here in dispute saying: 'I have tried to deal fair with her, I put her name on my deeds but in doing so I have found out that fairplay didn't work.'
In appealing to this court, the executrix under the Hart will argues that when an alteration appears suspicious the burden is then upon the party claiming under the instrument in question to explain the change. We recognize that there is authority for such a point of view, especially where the instrument involved is a negotiable instrument. However, as indicated in 3 C.J.S. Alteration of Instruments § 90, p. 999, the rule that an apparent alteration in an instrument will be presumed to have been made before execution and delivery was early stated to be applicable in the case of deeds, and this rule is supported by several modern decisions. See the cases cited in note 44.
The rule as to suspicious alterations assumes that there has been an alteration and it is not applicable where the issue is as to the contents of an instrument when delivered. Spaulding v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, 96 Vt. 67, 117 A. 376, 381; 3 C.J.S. supra. On page 998 of 3 C.J.S. Alteration of Instruments § 90, it is said that the ultimate questions of the time when and by whom the change was made are for the jury (trier of fact).
The modern and best-reasoned view indulges no presumption as to the time of the alteration, but the entire question is for the trier of fact to consider in the light of all the evidence. Fensler v. Sterling, 132 Ohio St. 498, 9 N.E.2d 283, 287; 2 Am.Jur., Alteration of Instruments, § 116, p. 676; Annotation 44 A.L.R. 1244, 1254-1255...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walsh v. Walsh
...(Wyo.1963), since the estate by the entirety lasts only through marriage. Wambeke v. Hopkin, 372 P.2d 470 (Wyo.1962). Cf. Hundley v. Neely, 365 P.2d 196 (Wyo.1961). We do not know whether the wife was seeking a one hundred percent title interest through the divorce division or only a fifty ......
-
Witzel v. Witzel
...has not been abolished nor has joint tenancy been abrogated or modified. Wambeke v. Hopkin, Wyo., 372 P.2d 470, 475, and see Hundley v. Neely, Wyo., 365 P.2d 196. It might be added that Walker v. Grogan, D.C.Mich., 283 F. 530; Thornburg v. Wiggins, supra; Case v. Owen, 139 Ind. 22, 38 N.E. ......
-
Choman v. Epperley
...joint tenancy or of a tenancy in common has been recognized in Nussbacher v. Manderfeld, 64 Wyo. 55, 186 P.2d 548 (1947); Hundley v. Neely, Wyo., 365 P.2d 196 (1961); Hartt v. Brimmer, 74 Wyo. 338, 287 P.2d 638 (1955); Wambeke v. Hopkin, supra; Witzel v. Witzel, Wyo., 386 P.2d 103 (1963); F......
-
Schulz v. Miller
...contract (to purchase) became executed, Bakken v. Price, 613 P.2d 1222, 1227 (Wyo.1980), and the gift became a fact. Hundley v. Neely, 365 P.2d 196 (Wyo.1961). Consequently, we agree with the district court that the documentation is determinative and parol attack by a participant on the com......