Mills v. Mills
| Decision Date | 03 November 1897 |
| Citation | 42 S.W. 709,141 Mo. 195 |
| Parties | Mills et al., Appellants, v. Mills et al |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Greene Circuit Court. -- Hon. James T. Neville, Judge.
Affirmed.
T. J Murray and T. J. Gideon for appellants.
(1) Did T. A. Mills abandon his homestead rights in the particular land described in plaintiffs' petition, and acquire a new homestead in the town lots purchased and occupied by him and his family in Brookline? Kaes v. Gross, 92 Mo. 647; Thompson on Homes and Exemp. 212, sec. 255. (2) The homestead means the home place -- the place where the house is, -- it is the home, the house and adjoining land where the head of the family dwells. G. S. 1865, p. 450, secs. 1, 2, 5; Hoyt v. Webb, 36 N.H. 158; Hyatt v Spearman, 20 Iowa 510; Laing v. Cunningham, 17 Iowa 510. (3) Where the owner of a place has not only removed but has established a new home elsewhere, the fact is conclusively proven that the former homestead was abandoned and this for the obvious reason that a man can not have two homesteads at the same time. Davis v. Kelley, 14 Iowa 526; Kaes v. Gross, 92 Mo. 647; Titman v Moore, 43 Ill. 169; Carr v. Rising, 62 Ill. 14; Smith v. Bunn, 75 Mo. 559.
John A. Patterson for respondent.
This action is designed to effect a partition of the estates of the heirs at law of Mr. T. A. Mills, deceased, in certain real property in Greene county. It does not appear necessary to state the pleadings. The substance of the controversy can be outlined more shortly.
The chief issue is whether or not the land was the homestead of Mr. Mills at the time of his death. Defendants contend that it was. Plaintiffs assert that the place had been abandoned by him as a homestead in the manner described further on. Plaintiffs and defendants are heirs of Mr. and Mrs. Mills; but the plaintiffs' claim to partition is founded on their relationship to Mr. Mills, while defendants resist partition on the theory that this land, as a homestead, became the property of Mrs. Mills at the death of her husband, and is subject to a lease made by her and also to the debts of her estate. The latter has not yet been fully administered.
In 1874 Mr. Mills died seized of the tract of land which has caused the dispute in this action. The tract consists of one hundred and forty acres in the country. It is worth not more than $ 8 an acre. Mr. Mills and his wife Nancy occupied it in his lifetime as a homestead for a number of years, beginning before the late war. There was a substantial dwelling house upon the land, and there were the usual improvements necessary to carry on a farm. Mr. Mills had several children who lived with the parents on the home place. Some of the children married and left home; others remained. The old home was about four or five miles from Brookline, a town which was established when the railroad now operated by the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company was built. In 1871 the father, Mr. Mills, bought a piece of land in Brookline and opened a little store there. There is testimony tending to prove that he retained possession of the old farm, cultivated it, and kept some of his family there. He visited it frequently. It was further shown in the same connection that he spoke of "going home" when he went out to the farm, and that "he always spoke of the farm place as his home." He got supplies of produce from the farm. One of his sons (who was married) remained there with his wife, and managed the farming business with the help of a hired man, employed by Mr. Mills. Mrs. Mills joined her husband at Brookline a short time after he opened the store there. But she often came back to the farm and would stay a while. Some of the household goods were taken to the house in Brookline, but many more remained for use at the old place. The farm implements were not removed. The family quarters in the town were in a small frame building, a portion of which was used as a store, and the rest as living rooms by those of the family who were there.
The town property was sold by the administrator of Mr. Mills and applied to his debts. Mr. Mills died in Brookline. His widow immediately thereafter took up her abode at the farm, and remained there till her death in 1893. Mrs. Mills made a lease of the property in question to one of defendants, Mr. Tine Mills. The terms of this lease are not given in the abstract, or in any part of the record before this division of the court. It was admitted at the trial that "the estate of Mrs. Nancy A. Mills, deceased, is not yet wound up and that there were claims against the estate, and not sufficient personal property to pay said claims or other real property not already partitioned belonging to said estate."
The cause was tried by the court without a jury. A finding for defendants resulted. No declaration of law was asked by any of the parties or was given by the court. The plaintiffs' petition was dismissed,...
To continue reading
Request your trial