Crecelius v. Horst

• Decision Date: 30 April 1886
• Parties: CRECELIUS v. HORST et al.¹
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

89 Mo. 356

CRECELIUS

v.HORST et al.¹

Supreme Court of Missouri.

April Term, 1886.

Appeal from St. Louis court of appeals.Frederick Gottschalk, for appellants. E. T. Farish, for respondent.

BLACK, J.

This is a suit to set aside a deed, on the ground that it was made to defraud the plaintiff of her dower, and to have dower assigned in the lot in question. Plaintiff and William Crecelius were married in 1860, and lived together on a farm near St. Louis for a year and a half, when they separated, and thereafter had no communication with each other, though living in the same vicinity. A daughter, Ida, was born of this marriage. William Crecelius had several other children by a former marriage. The defendant Catherine intermarried with defendant Horst, being one of them. William Crecelius died in 1874, leaving as his heirs Catherine and Ida. In 1871 he purchased a lot in St. Louis, and, by a deed dated in November of that year, had the same conveyed to himself for life, with remainder in fee to his daughter Catherine. He built a house upon the lot in 1871, and in 1872 moved into it, and he and his said daughter continued to live there until his death, in 1874, and she and her husband now occupy the property. On the 1st of April, 1871, he made a will, which was probated after his death, whereby he gave to his daughter Ida one dollar, and declared that his wife, the plaintiff, should be entitled to such share in his estate as the law allowed her, and no more, and devised and bequeathed all the balance of his property to his children John and Catherine. John died while the testator was yet living. The plaintiff elected to take a child's share, under section 11, c. 130, of the dower act, (Gen. St. 1865,) and there was assigned to her in lieu of her dower under that section one-third of the farm. She now contends that she is entitled to be endowed of a one-third for life in the lot in question, under the first section of the same act. This claim is based upon the ground that, as Crecelius did not die seised of an estate of inheritance in the lot, it was not involved in the election. Before the determination of this question becomes material, it must be shown that the investment of the money in the lot and house, taking the title to himself for life, with remainder to the daughter, was a fraud on the plaintiff, as to which a court of equity will grant relief.

By the laws of this state, the widow is endowed in the personal property of the husband, but she is endowed in such personal property only as he owned at the time of his death. Until then he may dispose of such property without her consent, freed from any claim for dower. He cannot by will, however, deprive her of her dower in the personal property; nor can he defeat her dower therein by resorting to a deed, or other contrivance which is...