Baker v. Jamison

• Decision Date: 06 March 1888
• Citation: 73 Iowa 698,36 N.W. 647
• Parties: BAKER v. JAMISON ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

73 Iowa 698

36 N.W. 647

BAKER

v.JAMISON ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 6, 1888.

Appeal from district court, Clarke county; JOHN W. HARVEY, Judge.

Plaintiff, M. A. Baker, brought an action to quiet in her the title to three-fourths of certain real estate in Osceola. She claimed to have acquired one-fourth of the property by descent from her mother, Charity Prentice, one-fourth by purchase from Jacob N. Prentice, one-fourth from T. J. Prentice; the said Jacob N. and T. J. being sons and heirs at law of Charity Prentice, and having also acquired said interests by descent from her. The defendants, John H. Jamison and the Clarke County Bank, pleaded title in themselves to the interest which plaintiff claims to have acquired from T. J. Prentice; their claim being based on a sheriff's deed executed under a sale of the property on execution issued on a judgment against said T. J. Prentice; and in a cross-petition they prayed that the title thereto be quieted in them. The district court entered judgment for defendants, granting the relief demanded in the cross-petition.W. B. Tolman, for appellant.

H. L. Karr, for appellees.

REED, J., ( after stating the facts as above.)

Charity Prentice became the owner of the property in 1875, and she and her family occupied it as a place of residence for several years thereafter. In about 1878 her husband died, but she continued for some time after his death to live in the house; her son Jacob N., who was a single man, living with her. He afterwards left the place, and she broke up housekeeping, and went to live with her married daughters. At one time one of the daughters lived for a few months on the property in question, and Mrs. Prentice lived there with her, but during most of the time after she discontinued housekeeping the place was occupied by tenants. In December, 1881, she accompanied the family of one of her daughters to California. The daughter died in a few months afterwards, and in April, 1882, she returned to this state, and in May following, while visiting a sister, she was taken sick, and soon afterwards died. She left surviving her, as her heirs, plaintiff and the two sons, whose interests in the estate plaintiff claims to have acquired. One-fourth of the estate descended to the surviving husband and children of the daughter who died in California, and no question affecting that interest is involved in this action. On the 17th of July, 1882, defendants recovered a judgment in a justice's court against T. J. Prentice, and on the same day a transcript of the judgment was filed in the office of the clerk of the circuit court, and subsequently an execution was issued thereon, which was levied on the interest of T. J. Prentice in the property, and at the sale thereunder the interest was bid in by defendants; and at the expiration of the period for redemption the sheriff executed a deed to them. On the 4th of August, 1882, T. J. Prentice executed to plaintiff a conveyance of his interest in the property; but, as that conveyance was made after the transcript was filed in the clerk's office, the interest acquired thereunder was defeated by the sheriff's sale and deed, if the judgment became a lien on the premises. And whether the judgment did attach as a lien depends upon whether the premises retained the homestead character up to the time of Mrs. Prentice's death. It is not claimed that they were exempt to T. J. Prentice as a homestead, for he never occupied the place for any purpose; but, if his mother retained the right of homestead in it up to the time of her death, he held the interest which descended to him exempt from his own antecedent debts. This is clearly the effect of the statute. Code, § 2008. And the fact that he did not take possession of the place, or occupy it as a homestead, after the death of his mother, is not material. Johnson v. Gaylord, 41 Iowa, 362. We think, however, that the finding of the district court that Mrs. Prentice abandoned her homestead right in the premises when she removed therefrom, is well sustained by the evidence. She was quite an old woman, and, at the time, was in poor health. Her children were all married, except her son Jacob, and he refused to remain with her. When she broke up housekeeping she sold most of her household goods, and we see nothing in the...