Brown v. Brown
| Decision Date | 06 April 1901 |
| Docket Number | 11,784 |
| Parties | SAMUEL BROWN v. HATTIE E. BROWN et al |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1901.
Error from Marion district court; O. L. MOORE, judge.
STATEMENT.
THIS action was brought on November 4, 1898, by Hattie E. Brown widow of Van Voorhis Brown, deceased, and Karl Power Brown an infant son of said Van Voorhis Brown and the plaintiff Hattie E. Brown, to set aside and cancel a warranty deed made by Van Voorhis Brown and wife to Samuel Brown on May 17 1894. Van Voorhis Brown was the son of Joseph and Emaline Brown, who, in 1884, lived in Pennsylvania. The family consisted in part of said Joseph Brown, Emaline, his wife and their sons, Van Voorhis, Samuel, Curtin, and Joseph, jr. Van Voorhis, the eldest son, came to Kansas about the year 1884, and in the fall of that year found a quarter-section of land for sale, and wrote to his father about it. The father wrote in answer that if the farm could be bought for $ 3000 his wife had that amount of money on hand, and would send it to the young man, so that he could buy the farm. The son afterward persuaded the owner of the land to reduce the price, and wrote to his father that he could get it for $ 3000. Thereupon the father sent him the money, which belonged to the mother, and with it Van Voorhis bought the land, taking title in his own name. It was not suggested that the title to the farm should be taken in any other name than that of the son, nor was anything said with reference to the money's being loaned to the son. No complaint was ever made by the parents that the son had done wrong in taking title to the land. It is in evidence that the father and mother intended to buy each of their sons a farm, and it is probable that the placing of the title in the son was in accordance with their desire, if it was not done at their express direction.
About the year 1885 the father came to Kansas and began living with his son upon the farm. The house was enlarged, some other improvements undertaken and finished, and later the entire family came to live on this farm, continuing to reside there until the year 1890, when Joseph Brown and wife removed to Peabody, where they have ever since resided. After the father and mother removed to Peabody, the son, Van Voorhis Brown, continued to reside on the farm, and on August 22, 1893, he was married to the plaintiff, Hattie E., in Pennsylvania, and immediately after their marriage they came to Kansas and together lived upon the farm as their homestead up to the time of the death of Van Voorhis Brown, which occurred on July 24, 1898.
For some unknown reason the members of the Brown family were not fond of the plaintiff Hattie, who seems to have belonged to a different type, and to have entertained opinions somewhat different from theirs. The Brown family was in good circumstances, and complaint was made that Hattie was not possessed of any property of her own, and came from a poor family. It is not pretended by any one that she did not well discharge her duties as wife of Van Voorhis Brown, but the early prejudice against her on the part of her husband's family seems never to have disappeared. Within a few months after she came into the family, it was determined by Emaline Brown and her son Samuel that measures should be taken to divest the wife of Van Voorhis of the interest she had acquired in the farm by virtue of becoming his wife.
Probably because she realized that she was not well liked by her husband's family, the plaintiff Hattie, within a short time after moving on the farm, became anxious to have her husband sell out, move off the farm, and engage in some other business. It was shown that he talked about removing to Newton to go into the livery business, and she was quite willing to have him do so. This fact was taken advantage of by the family to accomplish their purpose in getting from her a deed to the land. Therefore, it was secretly agreed that the title should be placed in Samuel Brown, who was married, but whose wife was at that time in Pennsylvania. With that end in view, Samuel Brown came to the house of Van Voorhis, and in the presence of the plaintiff Hattie, canvassed the desirability of Van Voorhis's selling the farm and moving to some neighboring town, and finally, in her presence, he offered to take the farm and pay the amount which his brother asked for it. It was then and there agreed between the two brothers that the farm should be sold to Samuel for $ 4500, to be paid in installments, and that Van Voorhis was to move away. Pursuant to this arrangement, as the wife understood, the deed was soon thereafter executed by the husband and wife, and delivered to Samuel, who then went back to Pennsylvania, and soon after wrote that his wife was sick, as she probably was, and postponed the time of coming on, and finally, when she did come, the following spring, it was given out that she did not want to live so far from town, and, therefore, the father, Joseph Brown, bought Samuel another farm, and Samuel notified the plaintiff and her husband that he would give up their farm. The plaintiff Hattie made no inquiry about the matter, but assumed that the deed was given up when Samuel decided to abandon the trade. From that time forward until his death, Van Voorhis Brown continued to run the farm as usual, and at the time of his death it was well stocked.
The child Karl Power Brown was born March 21, 1897.
A few days before Van Voorhis Brown died he was removed to Peabody, that he might have medical attendance. He died there, and the next day after the funeral the plaintiff in error and other members of his family took the widow out to her home, and informed her that there was "nothing there for her," and induced her to pack up her personal wearing apparel in great haste, bought her a ticket to Pennsylvania, and, without giving her an opportunity to confer with her nearest neighbor, put her on the cars and sent her away.
The action was tried to the court below without a jury, and on its own motion the court made certain special findings of fact which sustained the claim of the widow and child, and a decree was entered in their favor, setting aside and canceling the deed made to Samuel Brown, who brings the case here for review.
Judgment affirmed.
R. L. King, and C. M. Clark, for plaintiff in error.
Keller & Dean, for defendants in error.
The plaintiff in error insists that the statute of limitations had run against plaintiff's action before this suit was instituted, and having raised that issue in his answer in the court below, he now assigns the failure of the court so to find as one of his principal grounds of error. We do not think the position is tenable. The evidence shows, and the court below found, that the plaintiff widow had no notice or knowledge that the apparently formal and businesslike offer and undertaking of Samuel Brown to buy the farm was, in fact, but a rehearsal by him of a farce, until after the death of her husband. The representations then and there made by Samuel Brown constitute the fraud complained of. It does not appear, and is not vitally important, to what extent Van Voorhis Brown participated in the fraudulent intent of Samuel, though the court below found that he joined in the effort to procure the deed, knowing that the pretended consideration of $ 4500 was not to be paid by his brother. Of course, the widow knew that the deed was delivered in 1894, but at that time she believed, and had a right to believe, that her brother-in-law had bought the farm. Afterward, when he announced that he would give up the farm, in view of the relationship of the parties, we think she had a right to assume that no attempt would be made to assert title under the deed, and that the same would be surrendered or destroyed. Be that as it may, she had no notice or knowledge that the conversation had in her presence and the words spoken by her brother-in-law constituted but the enactment of a play to deceive her, until she was suddenly and ruthlessly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Herd v. Chambers
...Allbert, 148 Kan. 527, 531, 83 P.2d 795, which quotes with approval the definition to be found in 65 C.J. 222, supra, also to Brown v. Brown, 62 Kan. 666, 64 P. 599, except for the fact the corpus was real estate a somewhat similar situation, where it was held: "Where a son purchases a farm......
-
Rice v. Garrison
...wife or parent and child, and that no valuable consideration passes, is not sufficient to raise a trust by implication. (Brown v. Brown, 62 Kan. 666, 675, 64 P. 599.) There must be fraud, active or constructive, and neither character of fraud will be presumed from the fact alone that the re......
-
Ryan v. Woodin
...29 Cal. 20, 87 Am. Dec. 146; Gano v. Martin, 10 Kan. App. 384, 61 P. 460; People v. Ettenson, 60 Kan. 858, 56 P. 749; Brown v. Brown, 62 Kan. 666, 64 P. 599 Hayden v. Hayden, 46 Cal. 333; Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, 680.) Sample H. Orr and J. M. Stevens, for Respondent. There is nothing to indica......
-
Williams v. Williams
... ... (Rice & ... Floyd v. Hodge Bros., 26 Kan. 164; C. K. & W ... Rld. Co. v. Wilkinson, 42 Kan. 337, 22 P. 412; Brown ... v. Brown, 62 Kan. 666, 672, 64 P. 599; Buchanan v ... Insurance Co., 94 Kan. 132, 135, 146 P. 411; ... Thompson v. Machine Co., 94 Kan. 453, ... ...