Albright v. Albright

• Decision Date: 18 December 1911
• Citation: 153 Iowa 397,133 N.W. 737
• Parties: ALBRIGHT v. ALBRIGHT.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

153 Iowa 397

133 N.W. 737

ALBRIGHT

v.ALBRIGHT.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 18, 1911.

Appeal from District Court, Clinton County; A. P. Barker, Judge.

Action in equity to quiet title to real estate. There was a decree for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.Skinner & Coe, for appellant.

Wolfe & Wolfe, for appellee.

WEAVER, J.

[1] It is conceded that A. J. Albright, now deceased, was at one time the owner of the land in controversy. The plaintiff claims the property under an alleged gift from the deceased and by adverse possession. The defendant, the widow of A. J. Albright, asserts title to the same tract under the will of her said husband, which has been duly probated. The trial court, after hearing the testimony, found that the gift was made to plaintiff as alleged, and that he took and held possession thereunder, but that he had not sufficiently shown any permanent improvements made on the land in reliance upon such gift. The court further held and found that while the gift did not, for the reason mentioned, become consummate as such, plaintiff's possession and claim of right thereunder for more than 10 years was sufficient to perfect the title in him by adverse possession. A decree was therefore entered quieting title in plaintiff, except as against the defendant's claim of dower to which the court held it was subject. Both parties appeal; but, the defendant's appeal being first perfected, she alone will be spoken of in this opinion as appellant.

The case as made by the plaintiff tends to show that A. J. Albright was in his lifetime a man of considerable wealth, and died possessed of a large estate. He had no children, but plaintiff in this case was a nephew, whom, when a small boy, he took into his family, giving him nurture, care, support, and education such as a parent ordinarily provides for a child. Plaintiff remained a member of the family until he arrived at his majority in the year 1896, when he married and went into possession of the “Mill Farm,” which is the name by which the witnesses designate the tract now in dispute. This possession he claims to have taken pursuant to a gift of the land from his uncle, and to have maintained the same adversely till the death of the latter some 14 years thereafter. To corroborate and sustain this claim, a large amount of testimony was introduced concerning statements made by A. J. Albright respecting the alleged gift, his conduct with reference to the land, and plaintiff's possession thereof. It is too voluminous to justify its incorporation in extenso in this opinion, but may be briefly stated as follows:

One witness informed said Albright of his desire to purchase a farm, and the latter advised him to buy “that place of Lewie's,” referring to the land in question, and, when the witness said he did not have sufficient means to make the purchase, Albright suggested that he himself would advance him the amount necessary for that purpose. Another witness had negotiation with plaintiff looking to an exchange of the Mill farm for town property, pending which witness asked A. J. Albright concerning the matter, and was told by him that, if he (Albright) was to do the trading, he would not make the exchange, but “it would be up to Lewis, that he had given him the farm, and whatever he would do was all right.” The same witness says Albright often referred to the matter, saying: “He had given the farm to Lewis.” To another witness who had formerly talked of buying the farm he said: “You made a mistake that you did not buy it that time. Now, I have given it to Lewis.” To another who approached him on the subject of renting the land he said: “The rent belongs to Lewis.” To another he proposed to sell the Mill farm, saying: “It isn't mine. It is Lewis', but I have a letter from him to sell it and send him the money.” He made a similarstatement and proposition on different occasions to two other witnesses. To a relative of the family he said he had given away a part of his estate, and given the Mill farm to Lewis. Later, and within a year or two of his death, he said to the same witness he had given the Mill farm to Lewis a long time ago. The statements of some of these witnesses were varied somewhat on cross-examination, but were not we think materially weakened. The plaintiff himself testifies to the gift and the circumstances of the transaction, but his competency as a witness is challenged, and we must consider his claim in the light of facts otherwise made of record. Evidence of verbal statements and admissions of the deceased are of themselves alone ordinarily insufficient to establish a valid gift, but they are admissible in testimony, and, if other facts and circumstances are adduced which fairly tend to show the alleged gift, such admissions may be of much value in arriving at the truth of the controversy.

Of the additional circumstances relied upon by the plaintiff we refer to the following: He arrived at his majority and married in the year 1896, the date of the alleged gift. Two or three months after that date, he moved upon and took possession of the Mill farm, and personally occupied the same for four years. He paid no rent to his uncle. His possession, use, and enjoyment of the premises and of the produce thereof was exclusive. He made various improvements on the premises in the building of hoghouses and corncribs and renovation of old buildings and the grubbing of trees to an aggregate amount estimated by him of about $600. At the end of the fourth year he leased the land in writing, and in his own name as lessor, for a term of ten years, and went with his wife to the western part of the state. To secure payment of the rent, he took from the tenant 20 promissory notes of $425 each, payable at intervals of six months, and placed them for collection and safe-keeping in the bank of which A. J. Albright was president, and took the bank's receipt therefor. This rent when collected by the bank was credited to the plaintiff, and, after charging him with expenditures for taxes, repairs, and collection fees, the remainder was forwarded to him. The buildings were insured, the policies being taken in the name of A. J. Albright, but the bills therefor were sent to the plaintiff, and he paid them. While plaintiff was in the West, more or less correspondence by letter took place between him and A. J. Albright, but, so far as it has been put in evidence, the matter of the ownership of the Mill farm was never mentioned by either party. The 10-year lease expired about the time of the death of A. J. Albright, and thereafter dispute arose between the parties hereto with respect to the title, settlement of which is the object of this proceeding.

The theory of the defendant is that A. J. Albright gave the plaintiff no more than the income from the Mill farm, and did not attempt or undertake or promise to part with the title. In support of this defense, the defendant herself testifies that soon after Lewis married she heard A. J. Albright tell him “he could go down on the Mill farm, and could have what he made off of it,” and that within a month or two thereafter Lewis went into possession of the farm. She further says that her husband and herself at one time “talked of giving the farm to Lewis, and fixing it so Lewis and his wife could not handle it, but we never done it.” No conveyance was in fact made. In the year 1907, while plaintiff was in the West, deceased advertised an auction sale of certain property, including the Mill farm, but the auctioneer named in the advertisement testifies upon the trial that deceased told him at the time that the farm belonged to Lewis. No bids being offered in advance of the reserved bid of deceased, the land was not sold. The land was taxed and the buildings insured in the name of A. J. Albright, but, as we have seen, the expenditures were, in fact at least, charged back to Lewis. Defendant offered other evidence tending to show that, after plaintiff moved away leaving the farm in the hands of tenants, the deceased directed or authorized the digging of a well and cistern, and the making of certain repairs. These bills the records tend to show were in whole or in part charged up to the plaintiff, and deducted from the rent collected. One witness bought from deceased trees growing on the farm to the amount of $45. To another he offered to sell the farm. To another he made a similar offer, and offered to let the witness have the money with which to buy it. In the presence of another, a member of the family, he said he did not intend to let Lewis have the rent any more after the lease to Brown expired. To another he said that: “Whatever Lewis does on the farm will be to his own interest, because the chances are he will own it some day.” The cashier of the bank says that on many occasions the deceased in his presence spoke of the farm, denied the authority of Lewis to rent it, and was dissatisfied with his management generally. There is no evidence that any of these statements were made to or in the presence of plaintiff. It is also shown that while plaintiff was in the West...