Beck v. Beck
| Decision Date | 11 June 1884 |
| Citation | 19 N.W. 876,64 Iowa 155 |
| Parties | BECK v. BECK AND ANOTHER. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Apeal from Wapello circuit court.
This is an action in equity by which the plaintiff seeks to protect a right of dower and homestead, to which she alleges she is entitled in certain real estate. There was a demurrer to the petition, which was sustained, and the plaintiff appeals.
Stiles & Beaman, for appellant.
Sloan, Work & Brown, for appellees.
It appears from the averments of the petition that the plaintiff and the defendant Elias Beck were married in 1870, and that they are still living together as husband and wife. At the time of the marriage, Elias Beck was the owner of a farm and a considerable amount of personal property. The defendant Charles Beck is the son of Elias Beck by a former marriage. Some five or six years ago, the said farm and personal property were sold, the plaintiff joining in a deed of the real estate. Afterwards Elias Beck invested a large portion of the proceeds of said farm and personal property in other real estate, and caused the same to be conveyed to his said son Charles. After the purchase of the last-named real estate, the plaintiff and her husband, Elias, took possession thereof, and have since continued to occupy the same as their home. It is charged in the petition that the purpose and intent of Elias Beck in selling his said farm, and in procuring the plaintiff to join him in the conveyance thereof, and in investing the proceeds in the premises which he subsequently purchased, and in taking the title thereof in his son instead of himself, was to place the property beyond the reach of the plaintiff, and fraudulently deprive her of her right of homestead and dower therein. The prayer of the petition is that the plaintiff's dower and homestead right be protected in the premises; that the full and complete title thereto be decreed to be in her husband, Elias Beck; and that the defendant Charles Beck be decreed to have no interest therein; and that he be required to convey the same to Elias. The demurrer was to the effect that the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
In the case of Buzick v. Buzick, 44 Iowa, 259, the husband of the plaintiff, by a fraudulent connivance, permitted his son by a former marriage to obtain possession of his realty by obtaining a sheriff's deed thereon. It was held that the proceeds of the sheriff's sale in excess of the amount of the judgment under which the property was sold, should be subjected to the wife's claim of dower.
In Petty v. Petty, 4 B. Mon. 215, the husband, a few days before his marriage, conveyed all of his real estate to his children by a former marriage The conveyance was set aside upon the ground that it was a fraud upon the wife's right of dower.
In the case at bar, the wife voluntarily united in the conveyance of the farm, which was the property of the husband at the time of the marriage. It is true, she alleges that her husband procured her to join in the conveyance, and purchased the other real estate, and caused the title thereof to be taken in the name of his son, with...
To continue reading
Request your trial