Iles v. Benedict

• Decision Date: 07 January 1922
• Docket Number: 23,367
• Parties: HESTER A. ILES, as an Individual and as Guardian of J. A. ILES, an Insane Person, Appellants, v. E. R. BENEDICT, Appellee
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

203 P. 925

110 Kan. 200

HESTER A. ILES, as an Individual and as Guardian of J. A. ILES, an Insane Person, Appellants, v. E. R. BENEDICT, Appellee

No. 23,367

Supreme Court of Kansas

January 7, 1922

Decided January, 1922

Appeal from Bourbon district court; EDWARD C. GATES, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE--Sale of Homestead--Insanity of Husband at Time of Conveyance--No Joint Consent to Convey Homestead. A contract for the sale of a homestead upon compliance with certain conditions was executed by both husband and wife, but before compliance with the conditions or the execution of a conveyance of a homestead, the husband was adjudged insane. The wife was appointed as guardian of the person and estate of her husband, and after obtaining authority from the probate court executed a deed for the conveyance of the homestead for herself, and also one as guardian for her husband, and tendered these to the purchaser as a compliance with the contract. The purchaser deemed the conveyances insufficient, and refused to accept the deeds and pay for the land. Held, that there was not the necessary joint consent to make an effective conveyance of the homestead and that specific performance of the contract was rightly refused.

Hubert Lardner, John C. Cannon, and James G. Sheppard, all of Fort Scott, for the appellants.

A. M Keene, of Fort Scott, for the appellee.

OPINION

JOHNSTON, C. J.:

The refusal of the court to adjudge specific performance of a contract for a sale of land has been brought up for review.

The defendant, who was the purchaser of the tract, declined performance because of the alleged inability of the plaintiff to convey a good title to the land. The title to the tract stood in the name of Hester A. Iles, and she and her husband, James A. Iles, occupied it as their homestead at the time the contract of sale to E. R. Benedict, the defendant, was made. A payment of $ 1,000 of the purchase price was made when the contract was executed, and nine days thereafter James A. Iles was adjudged insane, and has since been confined in the state hospital for the insane. When defendant asked for a deed he was informed that Mrs. Iles was unable to convey the land until authority for that purpose had been obtained from the probate judge, and that the authority to convey could not be obtained in less than two or three months. Later the probate judge appointed Mrs. Iles as guardian of her husband and at the same time authorized her to convey the land and complete the contract with the defendant. Subsequently she executed a deed purporting to convey her interest, and at the same time another deed which she executed as guardian of her husband, and when these were tendered to the defendant he refused to carry out the contract on the ground that the instruments were insufficient to express a joint consent necessary to the alienation of the homestead and to make a valid conveyance.

The refusal to decree specific performance must be upheld. A purchaser of land cannot be compelled to accept a doubtful title to it which will expose him to litigation or one which he may be compelled to defend in the courts on some reasonably debatable grounds. The title proposed to be conveyed to the defendant was more than doubtful, it was absolutely defective. As the property was a homestead and continued to be a homestead until after the husband of the plaintiff had been adjudged insane, there was no possibility of gaining joint consent of husband and wife. Joint consent is essential to a valid conveyance of a homestead. (Const art. 15, § 9.) The constitutional provision is to be strictly enforced, and so it has been held that separate conveyances by the husband and wife of a homestead did not constitute a good conveyance. (Ott v. Sprague, 27 Kan. 620....