Howard v. Howard

Decision Date09 December 1893
Citation34 P. 1114,52 Kan. 469
PartiesKATHARINE S. HOWARD v. SALOME C. HOWARD
CourtKansas Supreme Court

Error from Atchison District Court.

THIS was a proceeding to review the rulings of the district court in two cases which were tried together, and which had for their purpose the determination of the rights of the respective parties in a tract of real estate in Atchison county. The case was submitted to the court upon the testimony offered in behalf of the respective parties, and on June 13, 1889, the court announced its decision orally upon the facts and law of the case in open court, which was in favor of Salome C. Howard. As written findings and conclusions were desired, the court requested her attorneys to prepare such findings and conclusions, which was done, and the court adopted those prepared and filed them as its own. The findings of fact and conclusions of law are in words and figures following:

"CONCLUSIONS OF FACT.

"1. That said Katharine S. Howard is the daughter of W. H. M Howard by intermarriage with her mother, who was divorced in Vermont in 1875, and said plaintiff was 20 years of age in January, 1889, and has always resided without the state of Kansas.

"2. Said Salome C. Howard, defendant, intermarried with said W H. M. Howard at Beloit, Wis., in 1877, and thereafter they resided at Geneva, Ill., until August, 1881.

"3. Prior to such marriage said Salome C. was a widow, and had derived upward of $ 50,000 from her first husband's estate, including a mill property at Geneva, Ill., which had been exchanged for some Chicago property on the basis of $ 20,000 value at about the time of the great fire. She had become acquainted with said W. H. M. Howard some two years before her marriage to him, and had mortgaged her Chicago property to raise money for an uncle, and this property being unproductive, she had thereby become embarrassed, and, having confidence in Howard, she had deeded the Chicago property to him before her marriage, without other consideration than that he was to manage the same in her interest and realize upon it to the best advantage for her in extricating her affairs from such difficulties. After her marriage she had the Geneva real estate conveyed to Howard upon the same terms, and had allowed him to use and manage her money and other means upon like terms.

"4. Prior to August, 1881, the defendant's said property and means so in the hands of her husband had become greatly reduced and incumbered, and upon the representation of said Howard that he had large means, including estates in England and Ireland, and large personal means in the hands of a trustee in Washington city, and all of which he was unable to use, either principal or interest, for the time being, it was decided that what was left of the Illinois property should be sold out and a trip should be made to Europe to look after his claimed estates there. The Chicago property had been exchanged for Geneva property, and all the real estate was either sold or mortgaged, and about $ 10,000 in money realized therefrom, together with the proceeds of the sale of said defendant's piano, library, and household furniture and about $ 3,000 in money was realized by her upon the final settlement with the heirs of her first husband's estate.

"5. The money so obtained, amounting to between $ 12,000 and $ 13,000, was taken into the possession and control of the said defendant, and with these means the said W. H. M. Howard (not having any means during his said last marriage other than so derived from the defendant,) and she furnishing the means for their expenses on their travels, they went first to New York city, where said Howard, upon complaint of ill health, gave up going to Europe, and they traveled for some two months in the eastern states, and finally decided to go to Washington city for the winter, to look after his means there in the hands of a claimed trustee. At Baltimore city he changed his mind on account of an invitation from Mrs Thomas Clark, who, with her husband, Thomas, then owned and occupied the said southeast quarter of section four (4), town six (6), range seventeen (17), all in said Atchison county, Kansas, who was then in ill health, and had great confidence in the ability of said Howard (who is a skilled physician and surgeon) to cure her, and started with said Salome C. Howard to visit said Clarks.

"6. The defendant and her said husband reached said Clarks' in October or November, 1881, and took up their residence in the Clark family. At this time there was between $ 10,000 and $ 11,000 of the said money still in the hands of the defendant, Salome C. Howard, and the balance spent. From time to time the Clark farm was improved out of this money, and other of this money loaned to said Thomas Clark, and the families continued to live together.

"7. The defendant had insisted that they should have a farm home, and that her money should be used for that purpose, and meanwhile consented that her husband should use the money to the best advantage, until the opportunity for putting the same into a farm should arrive, and that during this time the money should be held and treated as money, and the title to the farm when acquired taken in her name, and she had reason to and did believe, until the death of her husband, that this was done.

"8. In January, 1883, Mrs. Thomas Clark had died, and Thomas Clark had a settlement with W. H. M. Howard of the farm affairs growing out of the advancement to Clark of the money of Salome C. Howard, and then gave him a note for $ 4,000 and a mortgage dated January 22, 1883, on the said two tracts of land to secure the same, the second half-quarter tract being already under mortgage to A. J. Grover. This mortgage misdescribed the 160-acre tract, and by action in this court said mortgage was reformed in this respect; and later, said Thomas Clark having intermarried with Rondolia C., they together executed and delivered to said W. H. M. Howard a deed, of date November 15, 1883, for the said two tracts of land, the consideration for each said mortgage and deed being advanced out of the said funds of defendant, Salome C. Howard, and it being her desire and understanding at the time that each had been given her in her own name, and such mortgage decree of court and deed were duly recorded shortly after their respective dates.

"9. Shortly before September 23, 1884, said Thomas Clark and wife separated, said Rondolia leaving the farm, and the defendant has since resided thereon as her homestead.

"10. Said action No. 4020 was commenced for the purpose, on the part of said Rondolia C. Clark and Thomas Clark, of setting aside the said deed, and during the pendency of which said Thomas Clark died, leaving Rondolia C. his widow and sole heir at law; and afterward, on February 23, 1888, the defendant compromised said action, paying said Rondolia C. $ 500, and she executed a release deed and transfer, of date February 20, 1888, of all interest in and to all property the subject of such suit, said settlement being in pursuance of stipulation between said Rondolia C. Clark and said Salome C. Howard, filed in said action March 5, 1888.

"11. The defendant, in November, 1884, upon the information that her husband had left a daughter by a former marriage living with her mother somewhere in New England, and believing that her husband had left large wealth which was covered up in the hands of trustees, went east for the purpose of finding the plaintiff, and seeing what could be done toward unearthing her late husband's wealth, and found the plaintiff, then a minor, living with her mother, then again married, in the city of Boston, but was unable to get any trace of any hidden estates or other means as having belonged to her late husband, or to induce the plaintiff's friends to join with her in an effort to that end; and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Exch. Trust Co. v. Godfrey
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • July 26, 1927
    ...S. Ct. 390; Nettles v. Nettles, 67 Ala. 599; English v. Law, 27 Kan. 242; Mosteller v. Mosteller, 40 Kan. 658, 20 P. 464; Howard v. Howard, 52 Kan. 469, 34 P. 1114; Mendenhall et al. v. Walters et al., 53 Okla. 598, 157 P. 732. ¶31 In Mendenhall v. Walters et al., supra, this court squarely......
  • Tiger v. Lozier
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • April 26, 1927
    ...of law thereon as tendered the court by the defendants. This identical question was before the court in the case of Howard v. Howard, 52 Kan. 469, 34 P. 1114, wherein the court said:"The second objection is that the findings made by the court were prepared by the attorneys for defendant. * ......
  • Exchange Trust Co. v. Godfrey
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • July 26, 1927
    ......390, 38 L.Ed. 218;. Nettles v. Nettles, 67 Ala. 601; English v. Law, 27 Kan. 242; Mosteller v. Mosteller, 40. Kan. 658, 20 P. 464; Howard v. Howard, 52 Kan. 469,. 34 P. 1114; Mendenhall v. Walters et al., 53 Okl. 598, 157 P. 732. . .          In. Mendenhall v. ......
  • City of Overland Park v. Cunningham
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • October 29, 1993
    ...that the court may rule intelligently upon them, and unless this is done they are not entitled to consideration upon a review." Howard v. Howard, 52 Kan. 469, Syl. p 4, 34 Pac. 1114 (1893). "An objection to the introduction of evidence must be so specific that the court may know from the ob......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT