In re Medford's Estate
| Decision Date | 15 January 1924 |
| Docket Number | 35510 |
| Parties | IN RE ESTATE OF WILLIAM MEDFORD |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Fremont District Court.--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, for appellant.
R. F Hickman and Tinley, Mitchell, Ross & Mitchell, for appellee.
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 with appellant at her home. 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, and 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's 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.
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 930, 171 N.W. 257; Brisbin v. Huntington, 128 Iowa 166, 103 N.W. 144.
Mere...
To continue reading
Request your trial