Growney v. O'Donnell
Decision Date | 17 November 1917 |
Docket Number | No. 18129.,18129. |
Citation | 198 S.W. 863,272 Mo. 167 |
Parties | GROWNEY et al. v. O'DONNELL et al. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Nodaway County; J. W. Peery, Special Judge.
Action by Elizabeth Growney and husband against Patrick O'Donnell and others, to set aside a deed. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
P. L. Growney and J. H. Sayler, both of Maryville, for appellants. Cook & Cummins and Shinabargar, Blagg & Ellison, all of Maryville, for respondents.
Plaintiff, the daughter of Patrick O'Donnell, deceased, joined therein by her husband, brings this action in equity to set aside a deed made by Patrick O'Donnell to his sons, Patrick J. and Joseph J. O'Donnell. The petition charges:
The answer of the two sons put in issue all the charges in the petition contained. The wife and widow filed a separate answer, in which she says that she understood when the deed was made that she was left her dower interest in the land, and that she only claimed such interest. She admits that the land was the homestead. The chancellor nisi found against the plaintiff on the charges preferred against the defendants, in the plaintiff's petition contained, and also found against the defendants' claim that they were entitled to the land, subject only to the dower interest of their mother. The finding of the court was to the effect that the wife had not signed the deed; that she had a homestead interest therein, and also had a dower interest in the surplus, if the homestead interest set off to her did not exceed one-third of the whole. In the interlocutory decree the findings are thus stated:
Donnell, except as to the homestead interest of said Patrick O'Donnell as hereinafter found and stated, and except as to the dower interest of Mary A. O'Donnell, the wife, and now the widow, of said Patrick O'Donnell, deceased, who did not join in said conveyance. The court further finds that the real estate hereinbefore described embraced and comprised the homestead of said Patrick O'Donnell, to the extent and value of fifteen hundred ($1,500.00) dollars, and that by reason of the failure of the defendant Mary A. O'Donnell, wife of said Patrick O'Donnell, to join in said conveyance, the same was invalid and void as to the homestead interest to the extent and value of fifteen hundred ($1,500.00) dollars, and was insufficient to convey said homestead interest; that the land hereinbefore described, is of greater value than fifteen hundred ($1,500.00) dollars, and that said deed and conveyance hereinbefore mentioned was legal and valid as to the excess of said land, and as to all of said land over and above the said homestead of the value of fifteen hundred ($1,500.00) dollars, subject, however, to the dower interest of the defendant Mary A. O'Donnell, if any, in such excess and part of said land over and above said homestead interest. The court further finds that the defendant Mary A. O'Donnell is entitled to have admeasured and set off, out of said land a homestead to the extent of fifteen hundred ($1,500.00) dollars, and if such homestead of the value aforesaid is less than a one-third (1/3) interest in said land, then she is entitled to have set off to her one-third (1/3) interest therein as dower, but the amount of such dower shall be diminished by the amount of said homestead of the value aforesaid. The court further finds that the plaintiff Elizabeth Growney, and the defendants Patrick J. O'Donnell, Joseph J. O'Donnell, Hugh J. O'Donnell, Mary Calahan, and Margaret Brady, being all of the children and heirs at law of said Patrick O'Donnell, deceased, are jointly entitled to the reversion and fee of said homestead of the value aforesaid, subject to the rights and interest of said Mary A. O'Donnell therein in accordance with the statute in such cases made and provided. The court further finds that it is necessary in this proceeding in equity to sever and set off said homestead from the real estate hereinbefore described, in accordance with the provisions of sections 6713 and 5710 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri of 1909.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Guthrie v. Holmes
- Frank v. Greenhall
-
State ex rel. United Brick & Tile Co. v. Wright, 34681.
...App. 25; Oakes v. School District, 98 Mo. App. 163; Orchard v. Bank, 121 Mo. App. 338; Miller v. Falloon, 187 S.W. 839; Growney v. O'Donnell, 272 Mo. 167, 198 S.W. 863; Advance Thrasher Co. v. Speak, 167 Mo. App. 470, 151 S.W. 235; Layne v. Miners Co., 180 Mo. App. 684, 163 S.W. 569; Ryan v......
-
Falvey v. Hicks
...value or quantity than the limits fixed by the statute, takes the surplus subject to the lien." In the later case of Growney v. O'Donnell, 272 Mo. 167, 198 S. W. 863, this court, in banc ruled that, where a husband, without joinder of the wife in the deed, conveyed a tract of land of which ......