Haguewood v. Britain

• Decision Date: 22 December 1917
• Docket Number: No. 18575.,18575.
• Citation: 273 Mo. 89,199 S.W. 950
• Parties: HAGUEWOOD et al. v. BRITAIN.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

199 S.W. 950

273 Mo. 89

HAGUEWOOD et al. v. BRITAIN.

No. 18575.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

December 22, 1917.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; Guy D. Kirby, Judge.

Action by J. T. Haguewood and others against F. R. Britain. From judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

W. P. Sullivan, of Billings, and Watson & Page, of Springfield, for appellants. W. G. Gideon, of Springfield, for respondent.

BLAIR, J.

Cordelia Britain died in 1912. Appellants are her heirs at law, and respondent is her surviving husband. In October, 1910, she purchased and paid for a residence and caused the deed to be made to herself and respondent. The deed, on its face, creates an estate by the entireties. Appellants brought this suit to have a trust declared and for partition. Having lost in the trial court, they bring the case here. Other facts necessary to a decision are stated in connection with the discussion of questions to which they are pertinent.

I. The doctrine that a resulting trust arises "from the payment of price by one person and taking title in the name of another finds its sanction in the theory, which courts of equity adopt, that such a trust probably expresses the intention of the parties to the transaction. But equity neither creates nor enforces such a trust contrary to the ascertained intent of parties capable of acting for themselves." Morris v. Clare, 132 Mo. loc. cit. 236, 33 S. W. 1123; Morford v. Stephens, 178 S. W. 441. In the circumstances, Mrs. Britain could have taken title in her own name and then, under the statute (R. S. § 8304, et seq.) as construed in numerous decisions (Farmers' Bank v. Hageluken, 165 Mo. 443, 65 S. W. 728, 88 Am. St. Rep. 434; Myers v. Hansbrough, 202 Mo. 495, 100 S. W. 1137; Kirkpatrick v. Pease, 202 Mo. 471, 101 S. W. 651; Clay v. Mayer, 183 Mo. 150, 81 S. W. 1066; Evans v. Morris, 234 Mo. loc. cit. 186, 136 S. W. 408; Turner v. Shaw, 96 Mo. loc. cit. 28, 8 S. W. 897, 9 Am. St. Rep. 319), lawfully could have conveyed to her husband without the intervention of a third party (Glascock v. Glascock, 217 Mo. loc. cit. 378, 379, 117 S. W. 67; Wilson v. McDaniel, 190 S. W. 3). She was entirely "capable of acting for herself" in the premises, and her intent becomes important. The trial court found that Mrs. Britain closed the negotiations for the property, consulted lawyers as to the best method of securing her husband in the enjoyment of the property in case of her own death, deliberately, after the matter was explained, chose to have the property conveyed as she did in preference to taking the whole title and providing for her husband by will, then paid her money and accepted the deed in the form in which she had had her own attorney prepare it. The court's finding on these matters is fully supported by the record. These facts not only fail to warrant a presumption of a trust, but they conclusively exclude any possibility that such thought was in the mind of any of the parties. Some courts hold that in cases in which the wife pays the consideration and title is taken in the husband's name, a gift is presumed; all hold if a gift is intended, and shown by evidence competent and sufficient, no trust arises. It is generally held that, if the wife pays the price and the title is taken in the name of both husband and wife, the law infers an intent of the wife to confer an interest by the entireties upon the husband, and no trust will arise in the absence of proof that one was intended. These principles are stated in 13 R. C. L. § 440. In Reed v. Reed, 109 Md. 690, 72 Atl. 414, 130 Am. St. Rep. 690, and Lux v. Hoff, 47 Ill. 425, 95 Am. Dec. 502, it is held that if a purchase by the wife or by the husband and wife is made with the wife's money and title taken in them jointly, no trust arises in the absence of evidence of an intent to create one. Mr. Bishop (Bishop on Married Women, vol. 2, § 1185) approves the doctrine that in such cases there is a rebuttable presumption of an advancement or provision; the whole matter being one of intent and there being no unbending rule. There are decisions which impose upon the husband the burden of showing an intent that a trust shall not arise from the wife's purchase and the taking of title in the names of both. It is unnecessary to discuss the relative soundness of these somewhat variant views because, in this case, the evidence and the court's findings satisfy the requirements of the rule most favorable to appellants.

II. Appellants rely upon cases (Jones v. Elkins, 143 Mo. loc. cit. 651, 45 S. W. 261; McLeod v. Venable, 163 Mo. loc. cit. 544, 545, 63 S. W. 847; Hudson v. Wright, 204 Mo. loc. cit. 432, 103 S. W. 8; Donovan & Boyd v. Griffith, 215 Mo. loc. cit. 166 et seq., 114 S. W. 621, 20 L. R. A. [N. S.] 825, 128 Am. St. Rep. 458, 15 Ann. Cas. 724; Holman v. Holman, 183 S. W. 623) holding that if the husband, with or without the wife's knowledge and consent, invests her money in realty and takes title, in whole or in part, in his own name, a trust arises in her favor. The doctrine of these cases is that the wife's money in the husband's hands is a trust fund, and the property in which he invests it becomes trust property (Alkire Grocer Co. v....