Hays v. Marsh

• Decision Date: 15 February 1904
• Citation: 98 N.W. 604,123 Iowa 81
• Parties: SAMUEL F. HAYS, Appellant, v. DANIEL MARSH
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

98 N.W. 604

123 Iowa 81

SAMUEL F. HAYS, Appellant, v. DANIEL MARSH

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

February 15, 1904

Appeal from Lee District Court.--HON. HENRY BANK, JR., Judge.

SUIT in equity to quiet plaintiff's title to certain real estate. Defendant denied plaintiff's claim, and pleaded title in himself. The trial court dismissed plaintiff's petition and quieted title in defendant. Plaintiff appeals.--Reversed.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

T. B Snyder for appellant.

Henry Schlemer and W. D. Hamilton for appellee.

OPINION

DEEMER, C. J.

Samuel F. Hays was at one time the owner of the property in dispute. In March of the year 1868, for the consideration of $ 1,000, he conveyed the same by warranty deed to his wife, Elizabeth Hays. Elizabeth was the sister of defendant, Marsh. She died in the spring of 1895, without issue, her husband, the plaintiff herein, surviving. He claims that he is entitled to the real estate of which she died seised because of a decree in a partition suit awarding the land to him, that he is entitled to it by adverse possession, and that the decree awarding the same to defendant should not have been rendered because of defendant's laches. He further claims that in any event he should be awarded a one-sixth interest in the land as an heir of his wife. Another claim made by him is that his wife held the title to the land in trust for him, and that he is entitled to the whole thereof as the beneficial owner. Defendant bases his title on the fact that his sister, plaintiff's wife, owned the land at the time of her death; that plaintiff, the husband, elected to take a homestead in the land in lieu of distributive share; and that he is entitled to have the fee-simple title decreed to be in him. The decree of the trial court gave plaintiff a life estate in the property, but decreed the fee title to be in the defendant.

Plaintiff must fail on his claim that he is the beneficial owner of the property, and that his wife held the title in trust for him, for the reason that he cannot establish such a trust by parol. The deed recites a valuable consideration as in hand paid by the wife, and plaintiff cannot establish a trust in the wife by showing that there was no consideration in fact paid for the deed. He cannot, of course, show an express trust by parol. He intimates that the conveyance was made to the wife nor the purpose of defrauding his creditors. This is denied, and we think that he has failed to establish his claim. But, if he had, it would not avail him, for the reason that a conveyance to the wife under such circumstances is good as between the parties, and the plaintiff cannot establish a trust by showing his own perfidy and dishonor.

It appears that after he made the deed to his wife, which conveyed an undivided one-sixth interest in certain lands, an action of partition was brought by some of the co-owners against plaintiff herein and others, and that in that action plaintiff was awarded the land in controversy. The wife, Elizabeth, who then owned the land under her warranty deed, was not made a party to the proceedings, nor did she appear therein. She was not, of course, bound by the decree. Shortly after the decree was entered, plaintiff and his wife, Elizabeth, moved upon the property, improved and cultivated it, and it was their homestead at the time of the death of the wife. These improvements were made by the husband and wife jointly. Plaintiff claims under the decree of partition, and argues that, if he is not entitled to the land thereunder, he is entitled to it by reason of adverse possession in his wife for more than ten years. It is manifest that neither Elizabeth Hays nor the defendant, as her successor in interest, is bound by a decree to which she was not made a party. We should not be expected to cite authorities on so plain a proposition. Even if it could be said that plaintiff obtained title to the land under the decree, the title inured to the benefit of his wife under her warranty deed. See Code, section 2915, and annotations thereto.

The partition decree was not binding on Elizabeth Hays, but her possession, with her husband, of the land allotted to the husband by that decree, with the implied consent and approval of the other co-tenants, amounted to at least a parol partition of the lands,...