Israel Coffman v. Agnes Coffman

• Decision Date: 03 December 1929
• Docket Number: (No. 6470)
• Citation: 108 W.Va. 285
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: Israel Coffman v. Agnes Coffman

108 W.Va. 285

Israel Coffman

v.Agnes Coffman

(No. 6470)

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted November 19, 1929.

Decided December 3, 1929.

1. Deeds Legal Presumption is That Two Persons to Whom

Grant is Jointly Made Are Each Seized of Equal Share or Interest.

When a grant is made to two persons jointly the legal presumption is that each is seized of an equal share or interest, unless the contrary appears in the grant, (p. 286.)

(Deeds, 18 C. J". § 324, p. 329, N. 87.)

2. Husband and Wife Extent That Share of Purchase Money

Contributed by Husband Exceeded Part Contributed by Wife for Land Conveyed Jointly Will be Presumed Gift.

Where husband and wife together furnish the purchase money for a tract of land which is conveyed to them jointly, nothing being said in the deed as to their proportionate interests, and it appears that the husband contributed much the larger portion of the purchase money, it will be presumed that he intended a gift to his wife to the extent that one-half of the purchase money exceeded the part contributed by her, and that it was his intent that she be vested with full legal and equitable title to an undivided moiety of the land, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, (p. 286.)

(Husband and Wife, 30 C. J. § 298, p. 703, N. 51.)

(Note: Parenthetical references, by Editors, C. J. Cyc. Not part of Syllabi.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Randolph County. Suit by Israel Coffman against Agnes Coffman. From the decree, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

C. 0. Strieby, for appellant, E. L. Maxwell, for appellee.

Maxwell, Judge:

This is a suit for partition of 104 1/2 acres of land in Randolph county. The prayer of the bill is that the land be divided, in the same proportion as the purchase money was contributed by the plaintiff and defendant, respectively. The trial chancellor found that each of the parties was an owner of an undivided one-half interest in the land and appointed commissioners to divide the same on that basis. From that decree plaintiff prosecutes this appeal.

The land was conveyed to the parties by deed dated March 20, 1916. At that time they were husband and wife and continued so to live until they were divorced by a decree of the circuit court of Randolph county in June, 1927. No attempt was made to settle the property rights of the parties by the divorce decree. The consideration paid for the land as recited in the deed was $2,100.00. The amount paid by each is in controversy. The trial chancellor found that the plaintiff paid $1,650.00 and the defendant $500.00. As to the use to which the land was to be put after purchase, there is likewise a conflict. Plaintiff contends it was purely for speculation; defendant says it was for a homestead.

The question for determination is as to the interest each of the parties took by the purchase. Plaintiff's contention is as voiced in the prayer of the bill to which reference has already been made. Defendant argues that by the terms of the deed each shares equally in the ownership. We are faced with two presumptions which are controlling of the issue, in the absence of satisfactory proof overcoming them. The first is that when a conveyance is made to two grantees jointly they are presumed to share equally...