Lewis v. Lewis

• Decision Date: 01 October 1901
• Citation: 87 N.W. 280,114 Iowa 399
• Parties: MARY E. LEWIS, Appellant, v. MARY J. LEWIS
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

87 N.W. 280

114 Iowa 399

MARY E. LEWIS, Appellant, v. MARY J. LEWIS

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

October 1, 1901

Appeal from Wapello District Court.--HON. M. A. ROBERTS, Judge.

ACTION for the partition of real estate. Decree for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

John W Lewis for appellant.

D. H Emery for appellee.

OPINION

SHERWIN, J.

I. The plaintiff is the wife of her grantor H. O. Lewis, who is the son of the defendant. In 1880 H. O. Lewis and the defendant purchased jointly the premises in question, upon which improvements were afterwards made with funds procured by mortgaging the same. At the time of the purchase, and when the improvements were made, H. O. Lewis, with other children lived with his mother, and together they constituted but one family. The children who were old enough to work did so, and their earnings were used for the common support of all, except in the case of H. O. Lewis, who paid off the mortgage from his earnings; and the claim is now made that his grantee is equitably entitled to a larger interest in the property than the defendant. We think this claim is not supported by the facts and circumstances before us. All parties were using their best efforts towards acquiring a home. Some were able to contribute more than others, but the common purpose was recognized, and while the plaintiff's grantor was looking after the incumbrance on the home, the other children and the mother were providing for the household and other expenses, and it would be inequitable to allow the claim now made at the expense of the other members of the family. The district court therefore rightly held that the plaintiff only took by the conveyance from her husband his undivided one-half interest in the premises in question.

II. In September, 1887, before his conveyance to plaintiff, H. O Lewis executed and delivered to the defendant a written instrument, which the plaintiff in argument concedes conveyed to her a life interest in the undivided one-half of the lot then owned by him, but contends that by its terms and its acceptance it conveys to the grantor the undivided interest of the defendant when its use shall cease. The clause in the instrument upon which this contention is based provides that "said lot and premises shall revert to the grantor upon the conditions therein named." It would require a perverted use of the word "revert" to sustain the plaintiff's position. At...