Ingersoll v. Odendahl

• Citation: 162 N.W. 525,136 Minn. 428
• Decision Date: 11 May 1917
• Docket Number: No. 20254[84].,20254[84].
• Parties: INGERSOLL et al. v. ODENDAHL et al. (IGO, Intervener).
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

136 Minn. 428

162 N.W. 525

INGERSOLL et al.

v.ODENDAHL et al. (IGO, Intervener).

No. 20254[84].

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 11, 1917.

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Hugo O. Hanft, Judge.

Action by Frederick G. Ingersoll and others, administrators of the estate of Dr. Carl Wirth, deceased, against Amanda H. Odendahl and others, in which Martin Igo, claiming to be a creditor, intervened and attacked a transfer as in fraud of creditors. Judgment for defendants, dismissing the intervener's complaint, and, from an order denying a new trial, plaintiffs appeal. Order affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

A deed, executed by a man advanced in years to his only child and heir, was delivered by him to the attorney who drew the deed, with instructions to have it recorded. The attorney took it to the proper office for record but taxes were unpaid and it could not be recorded until they were paid. He kept the deed with the knowledge of both parties, the grantor promising to pay the taxes but he died before doing so. The court properly found that the deed had been delivered.

In an action against husband and wife to set aside a deed to the wife, the wife cannot be compelled to testify. F. G. Ingersoll and Geo. R. O'Reilly, both of St. Paul, and J. A. Sweeney, of Minneapolis, for appellants.

Barton & Kay, of St. Paul, for respondents.

John I. Levin, of St. Paul, for intervener.

HALLAM, J.

This action is brought by administrators of the estate of Dr. Carl Wirth, deceased, to recover possession of several tracts of real estate, which were owned by Dr. Wirth in his lifetime. The court found for defendants. The defendant, Amanda H. Odendahl, was the daughter and sole heir of deceased. Defendants claim that Dr. Wirth, a man advanced in years, executed and delivered a deed to his daughter of all the property in controversy. A deed of this purport, bearing date June 11, 1913, was recorded June 13, 1914. Dr. Wirth died in April, 1914.

It was claimed on the trial that all but one of the descriptions in this deed were inserted after the deed was executed, and without the knowledge of Dr. Wirth. There was testimony denying this in positive terms. The court found against the contention. The evidence sustains this finding.

An intervener claiming to be a creditor came into the case and in a complaint in intervention attacked the transfer as in fraud of creditors. This complaint has been dismissed. There is no allegation in plaintiffs' complaint of fraud or of creditors, nor did plaintiffs make proof of any such facts. In the intervener's complaint there was an allegation that a claim of his had been allowed by the probate court and that the estate was insolvent. This was admitted in an answer to the intervener's complaint. But the intervener has retired from the case. He is asking no relief and wants none, and it does not appear that there are any other creditors. The issue of fraud upon creditors is out of the case.

Counsel for appellant, in a reply brief, suggest that in such event, leave should be granted them to amend their pleadings. Application of this character should be made to the trial court.

It appears that the ostensible purpose of the giving of the deed from Dr. Wirth to his daughter was to evade payment of an inheritance tax. The statute appears broad enough to reach frauds of that sort without the necessity of setting aside the conveyance. G. S. 1913, § 2271. See Innes v. Potter, 130 Minn. 320, 326, 153 N. W. 604.

In fact, not much is involved in this lawsuit now except the costs of litigation and expenses of administration. The defendant, Amanda H. Odendahl, receives the estate in any event. If the deed was operative she gets the property as grantee, if it is inoperative she gets it as heir. The differences is one of procedure. One question, however, should be decided.

[1] 1. It is contended that the deed was never delivered. The court found that it was delivered. If it was not, then the property remained the property of the deceased and the administrator is entitled to recover possession of it, whether there are creditors or not. Kern v. Cooper, 91 Minn. 121, 97 N. W. 648;Eyre v. City of Faribault, 121 Minn. 233, 141 N. W. 170, L. R. A. 1917A, 685. If the deed was delivered, the property never became part of the estate, even though the deed was without consideration. No rights of third parties intervening, deceased might give his property to his daughter, and if he did so, the administrator of his estate had no claim upon it.

[4][6][7] The law is that no particular ceremony is necessary to the delivery of a deed. If the deed to be disposed of as to evince an intention of the parties that it shall become immediately operative, that is sufficient. Conlan v. Grace, 36 Minn. 276, 30 N. W. 880;Lee v. Fletcher, 46 Minn. 49, 48 N. W. 456,12 L. R. A. 171. The essential thing is that the grantor must part with control of the deed and put it beyond his power to revoke or recall. Babbitt v. Bennett, 68 Minn. 260, 71 N. W. 22;Dickson v. Miller, 124 Minn. 346, 145 N. W. 112;Innes v. Potter, 130 Minn. 320, 153 N. W. 604. Placing a deed on record usually operates as a delivery of it. This act, even though done without the knowledge of the grantee, raises a presumption of delivery. Vessey v. Dwyer, 116 Minn. 245, 133 N. W. 613. Where the grant imposes no burdens upon the grantee, acceptance will be...