Miles v. Miles

• Decision Date: 11 April 1904
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: MARY R. MILES ET AL. v. THEUS N. MILES ET AL

37 So. 112

84 Miss. 624

MARY R. MILES ET AL. v. THEUS N. MILES ET AL

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 11, 1904

FROM the chancery court of Holmes county, HON. ADAM M. BYRD Chancellor.

Theus N. Miles and others, appellees, were complainants in the court below; Mary R. Miles and others, appellants, were defendants there. From a decree in complainants' favor the defendants appealed to the supreme court.

This suit began by an original bill to reform a deed to appellees executed July 1, 1897, by Gen. W. R. Miles, to certain lands and personairy--lands described by sectional numbers constituting, as declared by the deed, the Quofoloma and Omega plantations--by adding to the sectional numbers used in the deed all of section 33 within the curvature of Horseshoe Lake, containing 110 acres, upon the claim that it was a part of Quofoloma. Besides reformation, perpetual injunction was asked against appellant, Mrs. Mary R. Miles, to whom Gen William R. Miles, by will, had devised, along with other property, the Good Hope plantation, in consideration of $ 25,000 obtained by him from her in 1895; the Good Hope plantation, as recited in the will, consisting of all of section 33 and other lands. Gen. Miles on July 1, 1897, was eighty years old, and the owner of four good delta plantations, named "Good Hope," on which he had resided, with appellant, his wife, for thirty years "Mileston," "Quofoloma," and "Omega." The latter two lay west of Good Hope, which separated them from Mileston. By a former marriage Gen. Miles had two sons--Theus N. Miles, who had a wife and three children; and Edward H. Miles, a bachelor; all of whom lived in Louisiana, and were then visiting Gen. Miles. During their visit a present gift of all the sons were ever to receive from their father's estate was discussed and settled. Before that visit Theus N. Miles, by an extensive correspondence, had tried to purchase from Edward H. Miles whatever property his father should allot to him. After full discussion, Gen. Miles intended to give Omega to Edward H. Miles and Quofoloma to appellees, Theus N. Miles and his wife, for life, with remainder to their children. Thereupon, in consideration of $ 10,000 in notes of Theus N. Miles, secured by a vendor's lien, Edward H. Miles executed to appellees a deed to all his interest in his father's estate, not specifying its nature, after which Gen. Miles executed a deed to appellees to certain lands, not including any of section 33, declared to constitute the Omega and Quofoloma plantations--the deed in controversy--its preamble reciting that Theus N. Miles had purchased the interest of Edward H. Miles. The deed declared it was all that either would receive, and based the consideration on love and affection. On December 6, 1875, Gen. Miles executed a deed to Theus N. Miles to a half interest in lands--the other half interest being then sold for $ 30,000--in which deed, signed by both, were recitals that Theus N. Miles had previously received $ 18,000 as advancements, and was to have nothing more from his father's estate than the land then conveyed. Gen. Miles, after having been financially involved for a long time, in February, 1895, with $ 25,000 borrowed from appellant, Mary R. Miles, proceeds of her mother's estate, discharged the last incumbrance on his property. In consideration of the $ 25,000, he then signed, acknowledged, and delivered to appellant, Mary R. Miles, a deed to the Quofoloma plantation, which she retained, but did not file for record. On July 7, 1897, Gen. Miles made his last will, devising to appellant, Mary R. Miles, all property he had reserved, including Good Hope plantation, consisting of lands embracing all of section 33. He died January 1, 1900. After his death, Theus N. Miles having paid none of the purchase-money notes, amounting to $ 10,000, Edward H. Miles instituted suit in the chancery court of Holmes county to enforce his vendor's lien notes against appellees and the Quofoloma plantation, alleging that Gen. Miles had determined to deed him Omega, which was the share of Gen. Miles' estate intended to be described in the deed to appellees from Edward H. Miles, and for which the notes were given, and that for the Omega plantation, afterwards, on account of this deed, conveyed by Gen. Miles to appellees, Edward H. Miles was the vendor, and Gen. Miles the grantor. A demurrer to this bill was sustained in the chancery court upon the ground that the deed was a nullity. This decree was reversed by the supreme court. Reported, Miles v. Miles, 78 Miss. 904 (30 So. 2). After this reversal the case was tried, the bill sustained, and decree entered against Omega for the purchase money. These proceedings were in evidence in this case.

In 1900 appellant, Mary R. Miles, leased the Good Hope plantation to one Thompson, who instituted an action of ejectment against appellees for the 110 acres of section 33 within the Horseshoe. Appellees instituted this suit to reform their deed of July 1st, and to enjoin appellant and all others from claiming that land under the last will of Gen. Miles. The bill alleged that the plantations were always known, managed and dealt with by plantation names, and were so platted on Gen. Miles' plantation map; that Gen. Miles and Theus N. Miles believed until the survey was made in December, 1899, that the west boundary line of section 33 ran east of the land within the Horseshoe, and all of that land to be in section 32, and that, while he did intend to reserve section 33, they did not know any part of it was within the Horseshoe, and that the deed sought to be reformed and the will were all parts of one transaction, by which two plantations were to go to his sons--Quofoloma and Omega--and the other two were to be retained by Gen. Miles, and devised to appellant, Mary R. Miles, as was done. Appellant, Mary R. Miles, in her answer, denied that any part of section 33 ever constituted any part of Quofoloma; that the plantations were well known by boundaries, always operated or disposed of, or were ever so platted; alleging the boundaries were indefinite, often changed; and that, in all of the numerous conveyances and incumbrances of Quofoloma by Gen. Miles, it had never been given the same boundaries or contents twice alike, and never embracing any part of section 33, all of which section had always been included in the descriptions of Good Hope plantation, taxes having always been paid upon the whole of it as part of Good Hope, to the present time; alleging further that Gen. Miles had intended Omega for Edward H. Miles, who intended that plantation as the property conveyed by him to appellees; that, on account of this deed, Gen. Miles conveyed it with Quofoloma, originally intended for appellees; that appellant had advanced $ 25,000 in February, 1895, to Gen. Miles, and received and held an unrecorded deed to Quofoloma; and that prior to 1897 Theus N. Miles had received all of his father's estate ever intended for him, and so acknowledged in a recorded deed executed in December, 1895. Appellees introduced several negroes who had long lived on the plantation, and three white men who had formerly been managers, to show that the land in the Horseshoe was treated and considered a part of Quofoloma. To the same effect several white men as well as Theus N. and Edward H. Miles testified. The managers stated that for many years the manager of Quofoloma would manage a part of Good Hope or Omega. A surveyor testified that the section line between sections 31 and 32 across Horseshoe had never been run until December, 1899, though it appeared upon the county map, and the plantation map of General Miles, which he often consulted, showed that about 110 acres of cleared land in section 33 were within the Horseshoe, which was an impassable brake, about a quarter of a mile wide, in section 33. The entrance to the land in the Horseshoe was on the west side, partly on section 29, which belonged to Omega, and partly on section 32, belonging to Quofoloma. Theus N. Miles admitted in his deposition that at the time of the execution of the deed, both he and General Miles knew that a part of the land in section 33 was within the curvature of the Horseshoe, but that General Miles declined to put any of section 33 in the deed, stating that only about ten acres was within the Horseshoe, and that appellees would not be troubled. On behalf of appellant it was proven by deeds and deeds of trust that, from before the civil war until now, every conveyance and incumbrance of Good Hope had all of section 33, and that no conveyance or incumbrance of Quofoloma (and a number of them were introduced) ever included any part of section 33. General Miles' map, put in evidence, showed that there were no boundaries fixed between his different plantations, and nothing showing what constituted each, other than marginal notations giving the quantity of cleared land of each, and that the cleared land accorded to Quofoloma was fully made up from that contained in the sectional numbers embraced in the deed in controversy, and that, without the 110 acres of cleared land within the curvature of the Horseshoe, the cleared lands assigned to Good Hope could not be made up, being short to that extent. It was also proved that not until surveys made after General Miles' death were the boundaries between Good Hope, Quofoloma, and Omega, north and south of Horseshoe, known, and that lands were worked until this survey, by appellant deeded to appellees, and by appellees that were devised to appellant. It was shown that the lands within the Horseshoe had nearly all been cleared by a tenant who lived in the Horseshoe, and to whom the lands were leased for fifteen years by the name of the "Horseshoe Tract." By negroes who had lived on the places, and by a...