Crawford v. Jones

• Decision Date: 12 June 1901
• Citation: 163 Mo. 577,63 S.W. 838
• Parties: CRAWFORD v. JONES.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

63 S.W. 838

163 Mo. 577

CRAWFORD v. JONES.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

June 12, 1901.

TRUSTS — RESULTING TRUST — ESTABLISHMENT — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY — JUDGMENT — LIEN ON LAND — VALIDITY.

1. When defendant was married in 1876, he had about $500, and in 1878 received $650 from his wife's estate, and three days later purchased a farm, for which he paid $750 in cash, the balance being deferred. In 1880 he sold a part of it for $250, and in 1883 the remainder for $1,800, and in six weeks purchased another farm for $2,400, paying $1,250 in cash. In 1884 he sold 40 acres for $250, and in 1899 another tract for $750, and in 1896 the remainder for $1,780, and two weeks afterwards purchased 80 acres for $1,750 cash. Defendant's wife died in 1881, and he testified that the money received from her estate was spent for household expenses, and doctor bills, and in purchasing furniture, and in paying her debts. The furniture was valued at $50 and her debts amounted to $16 or $20. Soon after defendant purchased the first farm, he told a witness that he paid for it with his wife's money. Held, that the evidence was sufficient to establish a resulting trust in favor of the heir of the defendant's wife in the 80 acres owned by defendant for the amount he received from his wife's estate.

2. Where a resulting trust was declared in defendant's land in favor of plaintiff as the heir of defendant's wife for money which defendant had received from his wife's estate, it was within the discretion of the trial court to render a decree for the money received, and declare it a lien on the land, in preference to setting apart a proportionate share of the realty to the plaintiff.

Appeal from circuit court, Morgan county.

Action by Vinnie Crawford against David L. Jones. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

This is a suit in equity to establish a resulting trust. Plaintiff is the daughter of defendant, and claims as the sole heir of her deceased mother, who was the wife of defendant. The testimony showed that the defendant and plaintiff's mother were married in Moniteau county in 1876, the plaintiff's mother at that time being a minor, with some estate in the hands of a curator. The defendant was an industrious young farmer, and after his marriage conducted his business on a rented farm. The only observable property that he had was a horse, but he testified that he also had at that time between $500 and $600. They lived two years on a rented farm. On February 15, 1878, the curator of defendant's wife, having made a final settlement of his curatorship in the probate court, paid to defendant, as the balance due on that settlement, $650. Three days after that transaction — February 18, 1878 — defendant bought a farm in Cooper county for $1,350, paying cash $750, balance deferred, taking the deed in his own name. In March, 1880, he sold 20 acres of that land for $250. His wife died in December, 1881, leaving the plaintiff, then 3 or 4 years old, her only heir. In September, 1883, defendant sold the remainder of the Cooper county farm for $1,800, his second wife — he having married again in the meantime — joining him in the deed. About six weeks after his sale of the Cooper county farm he bought a 139-acre farm in Morgan county for $2,400, paying cash $1,250 or $1,300, the balance deferred. In 1884 he sold 40 acres of the Morgan county land to one Yates for $250, and in 1889 39 acres to one Campbell for $700, and continued to own and occupy the rest until March 6, 1896, when he sold it to one Monks for $1,780; and on March 21st — that is, about two weeks thereafter — he bought another 80-acre tract in Morgan county, paying $1,750 cash for same. It is into this last purchase the plaintiff seeks to establish her right as heir of her mother as beneficiary in the resulting trust. A witness for plaintiff — William Varner, a near neighbor of defendant when he lived on the Cooper county farm — testified that defendant told him about the time that farm was purchased that he had paid for it with his wife's money. Plaintiff called defendant as a witness, and he testified that before his marriage he worked on farms at $16 and $18 a month, and at the time of his marriage he owned a horse and had between $500 and $600 in cash; that after his marriage he collected $650 from his wife's curator. "Q. How much of it went into that land you bought out in Cooper county? A. I couldn't say a dollar went into it. We had a good bit of sickness after we married. Housekeeping was high. She carried this money on her own person. She paid her own debts in California, what she owed. She paid a good deal of money for furniture. Q. You don't mean to say you spent all her money paying doctors' bills and things of that kind? A. We had our money together, and she carried it. Q. And you paid what was necessary to pay out of the general fund? A. I paid — When I wanted money, I got it of her. She paid her own debts she owed in California." On further examination he said that it was $50 or $60 she paid for furniture and $16 or $20 for debts she owed. He said: "Sappington [that was the curator] wrote me word to come and get the...