Huff v. Huff

• Decision Date: 02 November 1911
• Citation: 118 P. 1080,20 Idaho 450
• Parties: JAMES D. HUFF et al., Appellants, v. ANTHIA HUFF, Respondent
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

118 P. 1080

20 Idaho 450

JAMES D. HUFF et al., Appellants, v. ANTHIA HUFF, Respondent

Supreme Court of Idaho

November 2, 1911

APPEAL - FILING TRANSCRIPT - DIVORCE - PRESUMPTION OF FACTS - COMMON-LAW MARRIAGE-DELIVERY OF DEED-UNDUE INFLUENCE.

(Syllabus by the court.)

1. Held, that the transcript on appeal in this case was filed within sixty days after the appeal was perfected, as defined by the rules of this court.

2. Where H. and D. were married in August, 1857, and on April 1 1871, H. abandons his said wife and thereafter does not live with her or support her, and on March 14, 1880, marries B and continuously lives with B. as her husband from that time to the time of his death in 1908, and during that time there is born to them as the issue of such marriage six children and at all times they conduct themselves and hold themselves out as husband and wife, and at the time of such marriage B had no knowledge that H. had not obtained a divorce from D. and that such marriage was entered into in good faith, and B. believed that H. and herself were legally qualified to make a contract of marriage, and it appears that H. had under consideration and took some steps looking toward securing a divorce from D. before he married B., are matters of sufficient importance and of such a serious character by reason of the issue of said marriage to raise the presumption of fact that a divorce had been obtained by H. from D. prior to the time of his marriage to B.

3. Where H. and B. are married by a minister upon authority of a certificate issued by authority of law, and at the time such ceremony is performed H. has a wife still living from whom he had not been divorced, and the first wife died about a year and seven months after said marriage ceremony between H. and B. was performed, and after said death H. and B. continued to live together as husband and wife for a period of twenty-eight years, and there was born to them six children, and they conducted themselves as husband and wife and sustained toward each other every natural association and relation consistent with married life, a marriage will be presumed to have occurred after the removal of the legal impediment by the death of the former wife.

4. Where it is shown that a married man is desirous of giving to his wife the property they have accumulated during their marital relation, and in order to carry out such purpose makes a conveyance of said property to a third party, who conveys to the wife, and it appears that such deeds of conveyance are intended as the deeds of the grantor, and both deeds are duly executed and delivered to the wife, who receives and accepts the same and records the same, there is a sufficient delivery of said deeds and the title to the property passes to the grantee.

5. Evidence in this case examined and held not to be sufficient to show undue influence of the wife over the husband or fraud in inducing the execution and delivery of a deed of conveyance of real property from the husband to the wife.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Second Judicial District for Idaho County. Hon. E. C. Steele, Judge.

Action to set aside deeds of conveyance of real property. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Costs awarded to respondent. Petition for rehearing denied.

L. Vineyard, for Appellants.

If there was no marriage subsequent to the death of the first wife contracted between Huff and the defendant, but they continued to live in a meretricious relation down to Huff's death, this relation did not make them husband and wife. (Stewart on Marriage and Divorce, sec. 46; Keeser on Marriage and Divorce, sec. 45; Collins v. Voorhees, 47 N.J. Eq. 555, 22 A. 1054, 14 L. R. A. 364.)

"A man, being already married, marries another woman; his marriage is invalid to all intents and purposes without any decree, whether in a proceeding between the parties to settle the question, or in a proceeding after his death in which his issue claim as legitimate." (Stewart on M. & D., sec. 50, and authorities cited; Patterson v. Gaines, 6 How (U.S.) 550, 12 L.Ed. 553; Smart v. Whaley, 6 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 308; Fornshill v. Murray, 1 Bland (Md.), 479, 18 Am. Dec. 344; Higgins v. Breen, 9 Mo. 497.)

C. T. McDonald, and Jas. DeHaven, for Respondent.

When a marriage has been shown, the law raises a strong presumption in favor of its legality. (Pittinger v. Pittinger, 28 Colo. 308, 89 Am. St. 193, 64 P. 195, and cases cited; 26 Cyc. 880; Keezer, Marriage & Divorce, secs. 44, 54; Megginson v. Megginson, 21 Ore. 387, 28 P. 388, 14 L. R. A. 540; Boulden v. McIntire, 119 Ind. 574, 12 Am. St. 453, 21 N.E. 445; Hadley v. Rash, 21 Mont. 170, 69 Am. St. 649, 53 P. 312.)

There was clearly a common-law marriage between the deceased and respondent, which took place immediately after the death of the first wife, Abigail Jane. From that time on, even if no divorce had been previously obtained, there was no impediment to Huff's second marriage, and the strong and conclusive presumption from the acts and conduct of the parties, from their holding each other out as husband and wife, and from their mutual assumption of marital rights, duties and obligations, is that the mutual consent, which gives validity to marriage, existed and continued during all the years up to the time of the death of Martin V. Huff. (Teter v. Teter, 101 Ind. 129, 51 Am. Rep. 742; 26 Cyc. 894, notes 7, 8; Schuchart v. Schuchart, 61 Kan. 597, 78 Am. St. 342, 60 P. 311, 50 L. R. A. 180; Poole v. People, 24 Colo. 510, 65 Am. St. 245, 52 P. 1025; Barker v. Valentine, 125 Mich. 336, 84 Am. St. 578, 84 N.W. 297, 51 L. R. A. 787; Manning v. Spurck, 199 Ill. 447, 65 N.E. 342; Blanchard v. Lambert, 43 Iowa 228, 22 Am. Rep. 245; Eaton v. Eaton, 66 Neb. 676, 92 N.W. 995, 60 L. R. A. 605; Adger v. Ackerman, 115 F. 124, 52 C. C. A. 568.)

Under the laws of Indiana, where they were living at the time the first wife died, they became husband and wife immediately after that event. Common-law marriages are valid in that state. (Teter v. Teter, supra.)

Common-law marriages are recognized in Missouri where the parties lived for about eighteen years. (Bishop v. Brittain Inv. Co., 229 Mo. 699, 128 S.W. 668.) And in this state, where the spouses resided as husband and wife for about six years. (Rev. Codes, secs. 2611, 2620.)

"All marriages contracted out of this state which would be valid by the laws of the country in which they were contracted are valid in this state." (Ibid., sec. 2619; Hilton v. Stewart, 15 Idaho 150, 128 Am. St. 48, 96 P. 579.)

Delivery does not consist in the manual act alone. It is usually a question of intent.

The test is: "Did the grantor by his acts or words, or both, manifest an intention to make the instrument delivered his deed and thereby divest himself of title?" (Flynn v. Flynn, 17 Idaho 147, 104 P. 1030; Bowers v. Cottrell, 15 Idaho 221, 96 P. 936.)

STEWART, C. J. Ailshie and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

OPINION

STEWART, C. J.

This is an action to set aside two deeds of conveyance of certain real estate situated in Idaho county, this state. The first is a conveyance made by Martin V. Huff and Anthia Huff to A. C. Gentry, dated May 2, 1907, and the other, made by A. C. Gentry and Naomi L. Gentry, his wife, to the respondent, Anthia Huff, also dated May 2, 1907.

The cause was tried by the court and findings and conclusions were made and a decree rendered in favor of the respondent. A motion for a new trial was made and overruled and this appeal is from the judgment.

The respondent moves to dismiss this appeal upon two grounds: First, that the transcript was not filed until more than sixty days after the appeal from the judgment was perfected; and, second, because the transcript is not printed according to the requirements of Rule 13 of the rules of this court, as the type used is smaller than the pica designated as the smallest type that can be used in the printing of transcripts. This motion is overruled. The transcript was filed within the sixty days prescribed by the rules of this court and as the type used in the printing of the transcript, while smaller than that commonly used, is leaded and the lines are not printed as closely together as is usual in such cases, the objection is not well taken.

The trial court made certain findings of facts, which as to the material issues of the case, were as follows:

1. That the plaintiffs are children and heirs at law of the late Martin V. Huff, deceased, and that said Martin V. Huff died September 30, 1908, in Idaho county, Idaho, in the seventy-second year of his life, and that at the time of his decease he was a resident of said county; that at the time of his death Martin V. Huff and the defendant were living together as husband and wife, and had been so living together since March 14, 1880; that on the 14th day of March, 1880, Martin V. Huff was not undivorced from his former wife, Abigail Jane Huff; that Abigail Jane Huff died in the state of Iowa on the 6th day of October, 1881, and that Martin V. Huff left his first wife, Abigail Jane Huff, and her children on or about April 1, 1871.

2. That on the first day of April, 1871, the said Martin V. Huff was not possessed of considerable property or any property, either real or personal.

3. That the said Martin V. Huff was divorced from his former wife, Abigail Jane Huff, prior to his marriage to the defendant, Anthia Huff, on March 14, 1880.

4. That the desertion or abandonment of the plaintiffs and their mother, Abigail Jane Huff, by Martin V. Huff, was not due to the wiles or blandishments of the defendant, and that the defendant did not alienate the affections of Martin V. Huff from Abigail Jane Huff, the plaintiffs' mother.

5. That the defendant is a...