Johnson v. Antrikin

• Decision Date: 29 June 1907
• Citation: 103 S.W. 936,205 Mo. 244
• Parties: JOHNSON et al. v. ANTRIKIN et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

103 S.W. 936

205 Mo. 244.

JOHNSON et al. v. ANTRIKIN et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

June 29, 1907.

1. DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION — ADVANCEMENTS.

Rev. St. 1899, § 2913 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 1675], provides that, when any of the children of an intestate shall have received in his lifetime any real or personal estate by way of advancement and shall choose to come into partition with the other parceners, such advancement shall be brought into hotchpot with the estate descended. Held, that such section applies to advancements to grandchildren, as well as children, of the ancestor.

2. SAME—GIFTS.

Such section was inapplicable to a conveyance of land to a collateral heir by way of gift.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Christian County; Asbury Burkhead, Judge.

Action by Lucy L. Johnson and others against Jake Antrikin and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded.

This was a suit instituted by plaintiffs against the defendants in the circuit court of Christian county, asking for a partition of certain lands fully described in the petition. Joseph Lebow died seised of the lands, intestate, without issue. Plaintiffs and defendants are his collateral heirs at law. Prior to his death, for and in consideration of love and affection, he conveyed by a general warranty deed certain lands located in the state of Tennessee to the plaintiffs. The defendants claim that said conveyance was made to plaintiffs as an advancement, but there is no substantial evidence in this record tending to establish that claim. The greater weight of the evidence shows that he gave the land to plaintiffs because of the love and affection he bore for them, which is corroborated by the expressed consideration stated in the deed. Plaintiffs refused to bring those lands into hotchpot, and the court found the issues for defendants, and entered judgment accordingly. In due time plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial, which was by the court overruled, and they have brought the case to this court by appeal.

G. Purd Hays and G. A. Watson, for appellants. Charles Farrar and Jacob Hartley, for respondents.

WOODSON, J.

(after stating the facts). The sole question presented by this record is: Should the plaintiffs be compelled to bring the land conveyed to them into hotchpot? If so, the judgment was for the right parties; but, if not, then the judgment should be reversed, and the cause remanded for another trial. The plaintiffs contend that the conveyance of the land in Tennessee to them was a voluntary gift, and that they cannot be...