Guthrie v. Guthrie, 39837

• Decision Date: 19 December 1955
• Docket Number: No. 39837,39837
• Parties: J. W. GUTHRIE et ux. v. G. B. GUTHRIE et ux.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 158

84 So.2d 158

226 Miss. 190

J. W. GUTHRIE et ux. v. G. B. GUTHRIE et ux.

No. 39837.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 19, 1955.

E. C. Fishel, Hattiesburg, H. D. Young, New Augusta, for appellant.

Melvin, Melvin & Melvin, Laurel, for appellee.

LEE, Justice.

This lawsuit presents a controversy between father and son over 160 acres of land. On March 20, 1950, J. W. Guthrie and wife, 77 and 73 years of age, respectively, filed their bill of complaint against G. B. Guthrie and wife, in which it was alleged that J. W., on January 27, 1932, contracted to purchase the land in question for $160 and its redemption from a 1930 tax sale and the payment of the taxes for 1931; that the deed was executed to him on June 13, 1934; that G. B., the son, advanced $95 for payment on the purchase price; that the complainants opened 56 acres to cultivation, erected a building thereon, developed a tung orchard, and made extensive improvements; that in 1940, G. B. began to lay claim to the land by reason of his furnishing a part of the purchase price; that, since he was their son, they permitted him to build a home on 40 acres, and he cleared some of the land and put it in cultivation; that in order to preserve peace between them, they offered to make him a will, or deed him a part of the land; that he rejected their offers, and had obstructed them in the free use of the land; and that they were compelled, for that reason, to institute the suit. They offered to do equity and pay their son for all of his advances and improvements, or deed him the 40 acres on which his home was located. The prayer of the bill was for the cancellation of his purported claims.

The defendants answered and denied the material allegations of the bill. They made their answer a cross bill and alleged that J. W., in the purchase of the land, was acting for the defendants, who paid the purchase price and erected all improvements. They averred that they were willing for the complainants, because they were father and mother, to live on the land. The prayer of the cross bill was for the adjudication that J. W. was holding title to the land in trust for G. B. and that G. B. should be vested with the legal title.

The answer to the cross bill denied the material allegations thereof and set up a further plea of the statute of limitations.

In the course of the trial, at the suggestion of the chancellor, the parties represented that they had settled their controversy. On July 5, 1951, a decree was entered in accordance with the announcement, namely, that J. W. and wife would execute to G. B. a warranty deed to the land and reserve unto themselves 'a life estate with the exclusive use and occupancy of the above described land with the right to the income from leases and rents of the tenant property on said land, and also to the right to lease the oil, gas and mineral rights of said property for a period of not longer than ten years at any one time. It is further understood and agreed that G. B. Guthrie, and wife, Florence Guthrie, are to vacate the place that they now occupy and to remove all personal effects, including farming tools, and equipment, and growing crops, and all livestock, on or before October 1, 1951'.

On the same date, July 5, 1951, the deed was executed. It did not make any reference to the second provision, contained in the above-quoted excerpt from the decree.

Two months later G. B. and wife filed a petition against J. W. and wife, alleging that the defendants were cutting timber on the land, and obtained a temporary injunction thereon.

On August 25, 1952, J. W. and wife filed a sworn petition in which they charged that the original decree and the deed executed pursuant thereto were erroneous to wit: 'That at the time of the execution of said deed this cause was being heard by the court on July 5, 1951, and after all the testimony by complainants and defendants was heard, at the suggestion of the court, said complainants and defendants herein retired to attempt a settlement and compromise of said cause; that the minds of the parties never met and said decree so entered and the deed pursuant thereto, are erroneous in that it was agreed that the complainants had the right to cut the timber on the land as described in the exhibits and the attorneys for complainants and defendants so understood same, and either through a mutual mistake or the fraud on part of the defendants, the right to cut said timber was omitted from said decree; that these said complainants after the said decree had been drafted, had explained to them that this gave to them the right to cut the timber, as well as the other rights shown in said decree, but by mutual mistake or misunderstanding or the fraud of the said defendants, the rights of the petitioners to cut growing timber on said lands was omitted from said decree. It was further explained in the execution of said decree and said deed that G. B. Guthrie would not interfere concerning any thing about the land or the cutting of the...