Groves v. Groves

• Decision Date: 21 January 1902
• Citation: 65 Ohio St. 442,62 N.E. 1044
• Parties: GROVES et al. v. GROVES.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

62 N.E. 1044

65 Ohio St. 442

GROVES et al. v. GROVES.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

January 21, 1902

Error to circuit court, Noble county.

Action by Emma Groves against John Groves and Elizabeth Lashley. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants bring error. Affirmed.

The defendant in error (plaintiff below) filed the following petition in the court of common pleas against said plaintiffs in error (defendants below): ‘ For a cause of action against said defendants the plaintiff says that she is seised in fee simple and is in possession of the following described real estate, in which the said defendants claim an estate and interest adverse to the plaintiff, to wit: Situate in the county of Noble, in the state of Ohio, and in the Zanesville land district, and bounded and described as follows: * * * containing in all 192 acres, more or less. Plaintiff further says that she derives her title to said lands and tenements in the following manner: On the ___ day of _____, 1898, on Samuel D. Groves died seised in fee simple of the above-described real estate, the title to which was acquired by him by purchase, under a deed of general warranty from Joseph Groves and wife, executed April 26, 1875, and recorded in volume 21, page 396, of the record of deeds for said Noble county, Ohio. Said Samuel D. Groves died intestate, leaving no children or other heirs to whom said real estate could descend, except plaintiff, who is the widow of said Samuel D Groves, deceased. Said defendants, John Groves and Elizabeth Lashley, who claim under and through said Samuel D. Groves deceased, aver and give out by words and speeches that the plaintiff has but a life estate in said premises, and that the defendants own the remainder, after her decease, in fee simple; to the great injury and damage of plaintiff and to her said title and possession. Wherefore plaintiff prays that she may be adjudged the owner in fee simple of said premises freed from all claims of an estate or interest therein of the said defendants by reason of the premises, for costs, and all other proper relief to which she may be entitled.’ The defendants below filed the following answer: ‘ Now come the defendants, and for a joint answer to the petition of plaintiff say: Defendants admit that said plaintiff, Emma Groves, is the widow of said Samuel D. Groves, and that he, said Samuel D. Groves, died seised in fee simple of said premises in the petition described, and they admit that said Samuel D. Groves, deceased, derived title to said premises by deed from Joseph Groves and wife, executed April 26, 1875, and that same is recorded as in said petition set forth. But these defendants aver that said Joseph Groves was the father of said Samuel D. Groves, deceased, as well as the father of these defendants, and that said Samuel D. Groves was a brother of the whole blood of these defendants, and that these defendants, as heirs at law of said decedent, Samuel D. Groves, are the owners in fee simple of said premises, subject to a life estate of said plaintiff, to which she is entitled as widow of said decedent, he having died intestate and without children; that said deed so made by said Joseph Groves to said Samuel D. Groves, whilst it recites a money consideration of the sum of $9,165, and acknowledged receipt of same, was in truth and fact a deed of gift; that no money consideration or consideration of value was paid for the same, nor was any to be paid therefor, but, on the contrary, same was in truth and in fact a deed of gift from his father, Joseph Groves, to his son, Samuel D. Groves, and they therefore deny that said premises came to said Samuel D. Groves by purchase,-all of which they can show, and claim the right to show, by parol proof.’ To this answer the plaintiff below filed a general demurrer. The court of common pleas sustained the demurrer, and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff below, quieting her title as against the claims of the said defendants below. The circuit court affirmed the judgment. Thereupon the defendants below (plaintiffs in error here) brought the case into this court, seeking to reverse the judgment of the courts below.

Syllabus by the Court

Where the consideration expressed in a deed of conveyance is a valuable one, the title comes by purchase, and it is not competent to show by parol that in fact the title came by deed of gift, and thereby change the line of descent.

J. M. McGinnis and D. S. Spriggs, for plaintiffs in error.

Dye, Frazier & Morris, for defendant in error.

BURKET, J. (after stating the facts).

One Joseph Groves, in the year 1875, conveyed the land in question to his son, Samuel D. Groves, by deed of general warranty in due form, and which recited that the conveyance was made for and in consideration of the sum of $9,165, paid by said Samuel D. Groves to his father, the receipt of which is acknowledged in the deed by the father. In the year 1898 Samuel D. Groves died seised of said land in fee simple under said deed. He left no child surviving him, but left said Emma Groves, his widow, and also left said John Groves, his brother, and said Elizabeth Lashley, his sister, both of the whole blood. The widow claimed that the land came to her deceased husband by purchase, and that she inherited the same from him in fee simple, under section 4159, Rev. St.; while the brother and sister claimed that nothing was in fact paid for the land by their deceased brother, and that the land was in fact a gift to him by his father, and that the land came to him, not by purchase, but by deed of gift; and, having come to him by deed of gift, that it descended to the widow for life only, with remainder to them in fee, under section 4158, Rev. St. If the land came to Samuel by purchase, his widow took it in fee, but if it came to him by deed of gift she took it for life only, with remainder to his brother and sister. Upon the face of the deed, as it recites a money consideration, the land came to him by purchase. In this state title to lands may be acquired in four ways,-by descent, by devise, by deed of gift, and by purchase. Lands that are not acquired by descent, by devise or by deed of gift are acquired by purchase. At common law a conveyance of real estate as a gift was supported by a good consideration only, but some eminent judges have held that such a deed would be valid without any consideration whatever, but the weight of authority seems not to go to that extent, although sound reason would seem to support it. See the opinion of Judge Welch in ...