In re Medford's Estate

• Decision Date: 15 January 1924
• Docket Number: No. 35510.,35510.
• Citation: 197 Iowa 76,196 N.W. 728
• Parties: IN RE MEDFORD'S ESTATE.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

197 Iowa 76

196 N.W. 728

IN RE MEDFORD'S ESTATE.

No. 35510.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 15, 1924.

Appeal from District Court, Fremont County; Earl Peters, Judge.

Action to vacate the appointment of an administrator. The court below dismissed the petition, and petitioner appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion. Affirmed.Ferguson, Barnes & Ferguson, of Shenandoah, for appellant.

R. F. Hickman, of Hamburg, and Tinley, Mitchell, Ross & Mitchell, of Council Bluffs, for appellee.

ARTHUR, C. J.

Alleging in her petition that she was the common-law wife and the surviving widow of William Medford, who died on February 28, 1922, Mrs. S. D. Patterson prays that the appointment of Charles Medford by the clerk of the district court of Fremont county as administrator of his estate be vacated and set aside, and that she be appointed in his place and stead. The court dismissed the petition, and she appeals.

The evidence shows that appellant resided in Shenandoah, Page county, where she still resides, for many years prior to 1904, and that the deceased, who was engaged in the furniture business in Shenandoah, boarded or resided at her home from about 1887 until the above date. During this time appellant and deceased had illicit relations.

They were separately indicted by the grand jury in 1904 upon the charge of lewd and lascivious conduct with each other. To these indictments they each entered a plea of guilty, and separately paid the fine imposed by the court.

Deceased continued at intervals to board or live at her home with appellant. The evidence without dispute shows that during a part of the time at least they occupied the same bed. In 1910 deceased took up his residence in Hamburg, Fremont county, where he resided until his death in 1922. During this period he made frequent trips to Shenandoah, and while there appears to have made appellant's residence his home. The evidence tends to sustain the claim of appellant that deceased gave her money, paid the taxes upon her home, purchased and paid for groceries, coal, and other supplies for her. Two witnesses testified that he said that he and appellant were married. Numerous witnesses were called who testified that the general reputation of deceased and appellant in Shenandoah was that they were husband and wife. Equally as many witnesses testified to the contrary. A daughter of appellant testified that deceased told her that he was married to her mother, but did not claim that a marriage ceremony had been performed. Documents, letters, etc., were introduced in evidence indicating that deceased wrote to appellant after he moved to Hamburg as Mrs. Patterson, and that he kept an account for several years of the money he paid to or for her, and in this account he so designated her.

[1] It is conceded by appellant that her relations with Medford up to the time the indictments were returned against them were unlawful, and that they did not claim then to be husband and wife. To constitute a common-law marriage there must be a present agreement between the parties to be husband and wife, followed by cohabitation as such. Pegg v. Pegg, 138 Iowa, 572, 115 N. W. 1027;Love v. Love, 185 Iowa,...