Carter v. Walker

• Decision Date: 21 February 1939
• Docket Number: 8822.
• Citation: 1 S.E.2d 483,121 W.Va. 81
• Parties: CARTER v. WALKER et al.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

1 S.E.2d 483

121 W.Va. 81

CARTER v. WALKER et al.

No. 8822.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Feb. 21, 1939

R. E. Hughes, of Charleston, for appellants.

Frank C. Burdette, of Charleston, for appellee.

MAXWELL Judge.

The problem for decision is whether the plaintiff is the beneficial owner of designated real estate by virtue of a resulting trust asserted by him. From a decree in plaintiff's favor, this appeal is prosecuted by an opposing claimant of a fee simple interest in the property.

In 1920 the real estate in question, residential property in the town of Malden, was conveyed by Robert B. Putney and others to Susan E. Carter, wife of R. M. Carter, the plaintiff. The deed recites a consideration of $1100 paid in cash by the grantee. R. M. Carter, the plaintiff, and his wife occupied the property as their home until her death in 1929, and since that time he has remained in control of the premises. Mrs. Carter died intestate and without issue, survived by her husband and six brothers and the children of a deceased brother. In the bill of complaint the plaintiff alleges that the purchase price of the property was paid with his money and that none of it came from the means or personal effects of his wife; that subsequent to the acquisition of the property, he built a new house thereon and paid for the same with his own money; that his wife "recognized the fact that she was holding the property for the benefit of her said husband, and thoroughly agreed and understood that, in the event of her death before her husband, your Complain ant, the said property was to be, and become, the property absolutely of your Complainant." On this background of allegation, the plaintiff prays that the heirs of his deceased wife be decreed to hold the legal title in trust for the plaintiff and that they be required to convey the title to him.

The plaintiff's prayer for relief is opposed by defendant George A. Walker, Jr., who came into the case by petition asserting title to an undivided five-sevenths interest in the Carter property, under devise from his uncle, Alvin A Walker, who, it is alleged, inherited a one-seventh from his sister, Susan E. Carter, and acquired four-sevenths through conveyances from four of his brothers. Whether that deed was in fact operative, there may be serious question respecting the interests of two of the grantors, Louis E. Walker and G. L. Walker, because these same two grantors joined with another brother, John W. Walker, in the execution of a quit-claim deed to the plaintiff, and that instrument was admitted to record almost two years before the recordation of the deed to Alvin A. Walker, through which latter deed the defendant George A. Walker, Jr., traces title. But whatever may be determined hereafter as to the interests of Louis E. Walker and G. L. Walker, the record herein discloses that under the will of Alvin A. Walker, deceased, the appellant George A. Walker, Jr., became vested with the one-seventh interest each of P. M. Walker, George A. Walker, Sr., and Alvin A. Walker. The appellant, therefore, has substantial basis for contesting the plaintiff's prayer for equitable relief.

The testimony adduced on behalf of the defendant is negligible, throws little light on the controversy, and need not be discussed.

The evidence for the plaintiff is meager, being composed merely of the testimony of himself and one other witness, Helen L Putney. The plaintiff testified in conformity with the above recited allegations of his bill; further, that he has kept the property in repair and paid the taxes thereon; and that when, at an attorney's office, he delivered the checks for the purchase price of the property and received the deed executed by the grantors to his wife, he stated to the attorney, in the presence of others: "I wanted to put it (the property purchased) in my wife's name; and if anything happened to me in the mine, she would have something to go on, and if she outlived me it would go to her; and if I outlived her it was to come back to me." He also testified that the two checks which he then delivered, each in the sum of $550, were executed by both himself and his wife; that though the money was solely his own, representing his earnings as a miner, it was kept on bank deposit to their joint account. He further testified that his wife was not present when the checks were delivered and the deed received. His witness, Helen L. Putney, one of the grantors in the deed to Susan E. Carter, was in the attorney's office when the checks were received and the deed delivered. She tes...