Meeks v. Stillwell
| Decision Date | 26 May 1896 |
| Parties | MEEKS v. STILLWELL et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Error to circuit court, Miami county.
Action by Isaac S. Meeks against Roxanna M. Stillwell and others in the common pleas. There was a judgment for plaintiff, which was reversed on appeal to the circuit court, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
Plaintiff's action was for the recovery of real estate, and an accounting for rents and profits. Defendants denied plaintiff's right to a recovery, and sought to have title quieted on alleged equitable grounds. The common pleas found plaintiff entitled to possession, and ordered a reference to ascertain rents and profits. The defendants thereupon appealed to the circuit court. That court found for the defendants, ordered title quieted, and adjudged that petition be dismissed at plaintiff's costs. Plaintiff here asks a reversal of that judgment.
Syllabus by the Court
1. The rule that delivery of a deed of gift may be to a stranger for the use of the grantee implies that the instrument truly expresses the intention of the grantor. But where the instrument so delivered does not express the real intent of the grantor, and has not been recorded, nor actually delivered to the grantee, the grantor may lawfully resume possession of the instrument, and correct it, so that it will conform to the real intent.
2. If after such correction, there is a valid delivery, the grantee's title will be such as is given by the corrected instrument.
3. Equity will not reform a deed of gift, so as to give it an effect contrary to the intention of the grantor.
4. Where husband and wife, being in possession of a homestead the title to which is in the wife, join in a deed of gift intending that it shall not be delivered until after the deceased of both, and the wife attempts to deliver such deed during the life of the husband, without his knowledge and consent, the right of the husband in the homestead will not be affected by the deed.
A. F. Broomhall and M. K. Gantz, for plaintiff in error.
C. D. Wright and Thomas & Thomas, for defendants in error.
The record discloses that, in the year 1886, and for a long time prior, Eusebia B. Meeks, and her husband, Isaac S. Meeks, the plaintiff, were in the possession, as a homestead, of the real estate which is the subject of the action, and so remained in possession until the decease of Mrs. Meeks, June 17, 1889. The title was in the wife. On August 6, 1886, they executed a deed of gift of the premises to Roxanna M Stillwell, a child six years of age, and a granddaughter of Mrs. Meeks. The deed was placed in the drawer of a bureau in their bedroom, with the understanding that it would be delivered after their decease. It there remained until the month of May, 1889, when Mrs. Meeks, being ill with what she believed was, and which proved to be, her last sickness, and being told that the deed would have no effect unless delivered before her death, without the knowledge or consent of her husband, handed the deed to an attorney, who was her friend and adviser, with directions to place it on record for Roxanna. A few days thereafter, and while the deed was in the hands of the attorney, Mrs. Meeks sent for him to bring the deed to her, which was done. She then stated that it was not her intention to have her husband put out of the property, and that he should be allowed to live there and occupy it as he had been occupying it before. She then wrote in the deed, following the warranting clause these words: The deed was then handed to the attorney, who, the next day, delivered it to the recorder of deeds of the county, and it was at once recorded. The plaintiff had knowledge of the above addition to the deed, and assented to the subsequent delivery for record. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial