Babbitt v. Bennett

• Decision Date: 12 May 1897
• Citation: 71 N.W. 22,68 Minn. 260
• Parties: BABBITT v BENNETT ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

68 Minn. 260

71 N.W. 22

BABBITTvBENNETT ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 12, 1897.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Held, that the evidence justified the finding that a certain deed had never been delivered. The mere recording of a deed by the grantor, without the knowledge of the grantee, in the absence of other circumstances, will not, as a general rule, amount to a delivery.

Appeal from district court, Douglas county; L. L. Baxter, Judge.

Action by George R. Babbitt against Sarah Bennett and others. Judgment ordered for plaintiff. From an order refusing a new trial, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Raney & Simmons and Constant & A. Y. Larson, for appellants.

Jenkins & Treat, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

The evidence tended to prove the following state of facts: The plaintiff was the owner, and occupied as his home, the premises in controversy. He and his wife had separated, and were apparently expecting to secure a divorce, which they in fact did shortly afterwards. They entered into an agreement by which plaintiff was to pay her a certain sum of money, in consideration of which she was to release all claims for alimony and all claims to his real estate. Desiring to carry out this arrangement, but understanding that a wife could not convey an interest in real estate directly to her husband, he and she joined in a deed of the premises in which the defendant Mrs. Bennett, his half sister residing in Iowa, was named as grantee. The sole purpose of this deed was to enable plaintiff to control the title to the property free from any claim or interest on part of his wife. The deed was left in the possession of the plaintiff, who filed it for record, and after it was recorded took it out of the register's office, and ever afterwards retained it, until it was taken out of his possession surreptitiously, or at least without his knowledge or consent, by Mrs. Bennett's husband and co-defendant. The plaintiff testified that he recorded the deed because he thought it was necessary to make it legal, but that he had no intention of delivering it to Mrs. Bennett, or of vesting the title of the property in her. Mrs. Bennett knew nothing of the execution of the deed to her, was never consulted in the matter and never paid any consideration for it. She was first advised of its execution by a letter from her sister, who was living with the plaintiff. Plaintiff continued in the actual possession and occupancy of the premises as owner precisely as before the deed was executed. Mrs. Bennett never asserted any right to the property under the deed, and after plaintiff secured a divorce from his wife she, at his request, without objection, executed an instrument purporting to reconvey the premises to him; but, her husband having refused to join in the execution of the deed, the plaintiff brought this action to have the deed from him to Mrs. Bennett and the record thereof canceled, alleging, among other things, that the deed had never been delivered. The trial court found that all the allegations of the complaint were true, and ordered judgment for the plaintiff.

It would appear from his memorandum that the judge's order for judgment was based on three separate and distinct grounds, viz.: (1) That the deed from plaintiff to Mrs. Bennett had never been delivered. (2) That the understanding on part of both plaintiff and Mrs. Bennett was that she was not to become the actual owner of the premises, but was merely to nominally hold the title until plaintiff asked her for a reconveyance; in other words, that there was an oral agreement or understanding between them that she should hold the property in trust...