Hall v. Dodson

• Decision Date: 23 May 1925
• Docket Number: No. 24701.,24701.
• Citation: 274 S.W. 462
• Parties: HALL v. DODSON et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

274 S.W. 462

HALL v. DODSON et al.

No. 24701.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

May 23, 1925.

Rehearing Denied July 1, 1925.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Nelson E. Johnson, Judge.

Action in partition by Charles Hall against Sarah E. Mansfield, John L. Dodson, and others. From a judgment vesting title to certain property in Sarah E. Mansfield, codefendants and plaintiff appeal. Affirmed and remanded.

Butcher & Knoop and Cyril B. Brown, all of Kansas City, for appellants.

W. O. Thomas and R. A. Smith, both of Kansas City, for respondent.

RAGLAND, P. J.

This is an action for the partition of two pieces of real estate in Kansas City among the collateral heirs of one Daniel Dodson, deceased. There is no controversy as to the respective interests of the parties in one of the parcels, but the entire ownership of the other is claimed by the defendant Sarah E. Mansfield. She bases her her claim upon full performance on her part of an oral contract alleged to have been entered into between her and Daniel Dodson in his lifetime, all of which she pleads as follows:

"That heretofore, to wit, during or about the month of June, 1911, Daniel Dodson, since deceased, being desirous of providing for the care and maintenance of his father and mother during their old age, said father and mother being without means of support, entered into a parol agreement with this defendant Sarah E. Mansfield as follows, to wit: Said Daniel Dodson proposed and offered to this defendant that he would buy a lot and build a house thereon in Kansas City, Mo., and give the same to this defendant absolutely for her own, provided she would take in the same his said father and mother and care for them during the rest of their natural lives; that said proposal and offer of said Daniel Dodson were accepted and agreed to by this defendant, and that said Daniel Dodson bought said lot numbered 19 (91) of Prospect Hill, an addition to Kansas City, Mo., and built a house thereon, and gave the same to this defendant absolutely as her own upon said condition aforesaid; that this defendant took possession of said premises, and took in said father and mother of said Daniel Dodson, and cared for them during the rest of their lives in said home, pursuant to the terms of said agreement, and she fully performed and completed all the terms and conditions of said agreement aforesaid made and entered into with the said Daniel Dodson."

She concludes her cross-petition with a prayer that the title to said premises be vested and confirmed in her.

With reference to the general situation of the parties to the alleged contract at the time it is said to have been made, the facts are as follows:

Dodson and Mrs. Mansfield were brother and sister. He was a locomotive or stationary engineer, had never married, and lived in a small house which he owned at 2431 Kensington avenue, Kansas City. Living with him were his father and mother, aged 80 and 75 years, respectively, whom he maintained; they being wholly without the means of support. She lived with her husband and son in a small house owned by Mr. Mansfield at 4730 Park avenue, some 23 blocks distant from the home of her brother. Besides Dodson and Mrs. Mansfield there were another brother and another sister; they did not live in Kansas City. Dodson was better off financially than the others, and had assumed the support of their aged parents. However, he had no housekeeper, and Mrs. Mansfield for a period of 4 or 5 years had gone regularly 2 or 3 times a week from her home to his to clean and put his house in order and to render such other services as would administer to the comfort of her father and mother.

As to what occurred after the making of the alleged contract, there is no dispute. Dodson bought the lot in controversy and caused to be erected thereon a 7-room dwelling house. Upon its completion, in September, 1911, Mrs. Mansfield and her family moved in and took with them the old father and mother. Dodson and a young niece of his and Mrs. Mansfield's also came and made their home there. Mrs. Mansfield thereupon assumed and discharged the manifold duties involved in caring for the home and administering to this family of 7. And thereafter, and during the remainder of their lives, the father and mother received at her hands in this home the care and attention made necessary by the infirmities of age. The mother died in 1916 at the age of 80 years; the father in 1917 at the age of 86.

With the exception of about 8 months spent in California, Dodson continued to make his home with the Mansfields until his death, which occurred in 1922. During all of the time he lived with them he paid for one-half of the groceries consumed by the family, and occasionally he paid the coal bill. Mansfield looked after the repairs and upkeep of the dwelling and premises, but Dodson paid the taxes.

With respect to the making of the alleged contract, its terms and conditions:

J. S. Mansfield, the husband' of defendant Sarah, testified:

"In the spring of 1911, along about the middle of June, somewhere right close in there, Uncle Dan came over to the house one Sunday and got to talking, he and Mrs. Mansfield, my wife, about her taking care of father and mother. Now he says to her, he said, `Sadie,' he says, `If you agree to take care of father and mother as long as they live,' he says, `I will build a house big enough to take care of the family'; and he says, `I will give it to you'; and he says `It will be your home.' I heard Mr. Daniel Dodson tell it in those very words. I believe Mrs. Mansfield, as near as I can remember, told him, `All right and I will,' something like that, to that effect. * * * The conversation I had with Dan Dodson while the house was being built was that he had left out the hot water boiler and had left out the lavatory in the bathroom. He had cut out the hot air chambers, and the contractor's contract I believe called for three shelves, and I told him, `Dan, why don't you fix them things as they ought to be, if you are going to have them for Sarah.' `Well,' he said, `I have spent all of the money I am going to.' `Well,' says I, `If you mean what you say about giving that place to Mrs. Mansfield, I will put in'; and he said, `All right, put it in'; and I did."

Thaddeus Officer, the contractor who built the house, testified:

"One evening he [Dodson] sent for me to come over to his house on Kensington and he says, `Here, these plans are all right. * * * I am going to build that house; it suits Sadie all right, and it suits me all right. * * * I am going to build it and give it to her for taking care of my father and mother during their lifetime. * * *' During the construction of the house * * * Mrs. Mansfield wanted some work done in the back door, you know, a kind of kitchen back door that I had not planned to do, and he said, `Well, if you do that work, she will have to have it done herself; it is her house.' * * * I did the work. * * * Mrs. Mansfield paid for the extra work that was done on the house."

On cross-examination he further testified:

"He said the house would be hers, I understood him to say at the death of his father and mother, or some future day. He said he intended to make a home with them, and I understood him to say at the death of his father and mother that it was for her. I believe he said it would be a home for himself as long as he lived. * * * At another time he said he was building that house for his sister to take care of his father and mother. He said she came over to...