Modrell v. Riddle

• Decision Date: 30 April 1884
• Parties: MODRELL et al., Appellants, v. RIDDLE et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

82 Mo. 31

MODRELL et al., Appellants,

v.RIDDLE et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

April Term, 1884.

Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court.--HON. WM. H. SHERMAN, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Plaintiffs read in evidence a deed containing covenants of general warranty, executed March 29th, 1865, by Uriah Griffith and wife to Hardin Riddle and Mary Riddle conveying the land described in the petition. This deed was duly recorded April 8th, 1865. Plaintiffs further offered oral evidence to the effect that Mary Riddle furnished the money to pay for the land in question, and that she objected to the deed to Hardin Riddle and herself, and wanted the deed made to herself alone, giving her husband, Hardin Riddle, only a life interest in it, and it was agreed that a second deed such as she desired should be made. That Hardin Riddle, after the death of his wife, endeavored to purchase the interest of his wife's children by a former husband, and that he admitted to various persons, before and after the death of his wife, that he only had a life estate in the land. Defendants' testimony was, in substance, that Hardin Riddle stated to several persons that the land in controversy was his wife's, that her money bought it, and he only had a life interest in it. To others he claimed the land as his. That he sold a farm in 1865 for $1,600, and then moved on to the land in controversy. That he lived on it about thirteen years and made additions to the house and otherwise improved the land. Defendants read in evidence insurance policies and tax receipts, showing that Hardin Riddle twice insured the house and paid the taxes on the land; and, also, read in evidence a writing purporting to be a deed from Uriah Griffith and wife, but not the one read by plaintiffs, conveying the land in controversy to Hardin Riddle and Mary Riddle, and purporting to have been acknowledged before Allen Jamison, a justice of the peace. The plaintiffs, in rebuttal, introduced Allen Jamison, who testified that he never took the acknowledgment to the deed read by defendants, and that the name signed to the certificate of acknowledgment was not in his hand-writing.

James W. Boyd and B. R. Vineyard for appellants.

Mary Riddle paid for the land, and hence a trust resulted by which Hardin Riddle held it as trustee for her and her heirs. Tennison v. Tennison, 46 Mo. 77; Darrier v. Darrier, 58 Mo. 222. It is contended that this money belonged to Hardin Riddle by virtue of his marital rights. This would not be so unless he received and held it with the intention of becoming the owner of it. If it was her money, and he reduced it to his possession, the law then offered to give it to him, leaving it optional with him to accept or decline it. The law did not both offer it to him, and then compel him to receive and own it. If he received it without any intention to own it, it did not become his. This doctrine is abundantly sustained, by many cases among which are the following, all to the point: Noble v. Morris, 24 Ind. 478; Standeford v. Devol, 21 Ind. 404; Gochenaur's Estate,23 Pa. St. 460; Bargey's Appeal,60 Pa. St. 408; Tracy v. Kelly, 52 Ind. 535. The second ground upon which we ask for such a decree is, Hardin Riddle's name was written in said deed as a grantee by mistake, neither he nor his wife being able to read. Even if this court shall determine that Hardin Riddle, by his marital rights, received the money with which this land was purchased, still if he purchased it for her with this money, and intended it to be conveyed to her, and his name was written in the deed by mistake, then the deed ought to be corrected. The defenses set up are the statute of limitations and that “plaintiffs' pretended claim is stale.” They are not sustained. The statute did not begin to run till Hardin Riddle died, 1878, and there was no stale demand. Dyer v. Brannock, 66 Mo. 391; Kelley v. Hurt, 61 Mo. 463; Spurlock v. Sproule, 72 Mo. 503; Miller v. Bledsoe, 61 Mo. 96. Plaintiffs did not know until after Hardin Riddle's death that his name was in the deed. Under the facts in this case plaintiffs have a right to relief in this suit. Griffith v. Townley, 69 Mo. 13; Lewis Evants v. Admr. &c. of Strode, 11 O. 480; 1 Story's Eq. Jur., § 134 and 480. Acts done and declarations made by one in possession of property against his interest are evidence against himself and those claiming under him, while those made in support of his title are not admissible in his favor, nor in favor of those claiming under him. Criddle v. Criddle, 21 Mo. 522; Wood v. Hicks, 36 Mo. 326. The court below erred in admitting in evidence the declarations of Hardin Riddle in support of his title. The trial court committed error in overruling plaintiffs' objection to the testimony of defendant, Anna Riddle. She was not a competent witness in the case, and certainly not to prove the declarations made to her by her husband. Holman v. Bachus, 73 Mo. 49; Moore v. Wingate, 53 Mo. 398.

Ramey & Brown for respondents.

(1) All personal property (other than separate property) of a wife, whether owned at the time of marriage or afterwards acquired, vests absolutely in the husband. Woodford v. Stephens, 51 Mo. 443; Boyce v. Cayce, 17 Mo. 47; Walker Adm. v. Walker, 25 Mo. 367; Polk Adm. v. Allen, 19 Mo. 467; Clark v. The National Bank of Missouri, 47 Mo. 17. The reception of such property by the husband does not establish a trust against the husband. Woodford v. Stephens, 51 Mo. 443, overruling Tennison v. Tennison, 46 Mo. 77. The evidence to establish such trust must be clear and unequivocal. Woodford v. Stephens, 51 Mo. 443; Walker Adm. v. Walker, 25 Mo. 367. Where a husband by means of marriage acquires absolute right to personal property in possession he cannot be declared a trustee for his wife by loose and general remarks made in conversation, and such trust as to land must be manifested in writing. Woodford v. Stephens, 51 Mo. 443; Walker, Admr. v. Walker, 25 Mo. 367. The possession of such money or other personal property by the wife is the possession of the husband. Walker Adm. v. Walker, 25 Mo. 367. (2) Evidence, to authorize the correction of such mistake must be clear and unequivocal. Downing v. McHugh, 3 Mo. App. 594; Bunse v. Agee, 47 Mo. 270; Able v. Insurance Co., 26 Mo. 56; 67 Pa. St. 462; Wharton on Evid. § 1019. Equity will not relieve against mistake when the complaining party had within its reach the means of ascertaining the true state of facts, and without being induced thereto by the other party, neglected to avail himself of his opportunities of information. Brown v. Fagan, 71 Mo. 563; Story's Eq. §§ 148, 150; Bufork v. Caldwell, 3 Mo. App. 447. (3) Equity will not relieve against a pure mistake of law. Story's Eq. §§ 111, 114; Faust v. Birner, 30 Mo. 414.

SHERWOOD, J.

This is an equitable proceeding brought in 1880 by plaintiffs as the children and heirs at law of Mary Riddle by a former husband, Modrell, and as the children and heirs at law of Mary Riddle by her second husband, Hardin Riddle. Mary Riddle died in 1867. Hardin Riddle married again. He died in 1878, leaving his wife, Ann Riddle, and child, Ellen Riddle, who are defendants herein. Plai...