Easton v. Huott

• Decision Date: 05 October 1895
• Citation: 64 N.W. 408,95 Iowa 473
• Parties: EASTON ET AL. v. HUOTT ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

95 Iowa 473

64 N.W. 408

EASTON ET AL.

v.HUOTT ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 5, 1895.

Appeal from district court, Jefferson county; H. C. Traverse, Judge.

Action in equity to determine the ownership of certain real estate, and to have it partitioned. A petition of intervention was filed, to which the plaintiff demurred. The demurrer was overruled, and a decree was rendered in favor of the interveners. The plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.Jones & Fullen, for appellants.

Wilson & Hinkle, for appellees.

ROBINSON, J.

The facts admitted by the demurrer are substantially as follows: Xavier Huott was an alien, but a resident of Jefferson county, in this state. In March, 1870, he acquired the absolute title to 140 acres of land in that county; and in September, 1893, he died intestate, leaving a widow, but no children. Among his surviving relatives were a nephew, Charles Easton, and two nieces, Mary Fox and Jane Miller (all of whom are citizens of the United States and children of his sisters, now deceased), and three sisters, and a nephew (who is the only surviving son and heir of a deceased brother), all of whom are nonresident aliens and citizens of France.

This action was brought by the nephew and nieces who are residents of the United States and the husbands of those nieces. They admit that the widow, who is made a party defendant, is entitled to an undivided one-half of the land, and claim that Easton is entitled to an undivided one-fourth, and Mrs. Fox and Mrs. Miller each to an undivided one-eighth, of the land; or, in other words, that the three are entitled to all of it which does not belong to the widow of the decedent. The sisters and nephew who reside in France filed a petition of intervention, in which they allege their relationship to the decedent, and aver that each is entitled to an undivided one-twelfth of the land. The demurrer is founded upon the theory that, as the interveners are nonresident aliens, they cannot inherit any part of the land in question.

The correctness of the ruling upon the demurrer depends upon the force and effect to be given to chapter 85 of the Acts of the 22d General Assembly. Section 1 of that act provides that “nonresident aliens are hereby prohibited from acquiring title to or taking or holding any lands or real estate in this state by descent, devise, purchase or otherwise only as hereinafter provided, except that the widow and heirs of aliens who have heretofore acquired lands in this state under the laws thereof may hold such lands by devise or descent for a period of ten years and no longer, and if at the end of such time herein limited such lands so acquired have not been sold to a bona fide purchaser for value or such alien heirs have not become residents of this state, such lands shall escheat and revert to the state of Iowa. * * *” The appellants contend that this act does not apply...