Padden v. Padden

• Decision Date: 06 April 1920
• Citation: 171 Wis. 212,177 N.W. 22
• Parties: PADDEN v. PADDEN ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

171 Wis. 212

177 N.W. 22

PADDEN

v.PADDEN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 6, 1920.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Croix County; George Thompson, Judge.

Action by Henry Padden against John J. Padden and another to set aside a deed. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Action to set aside a deed from Michael Padden to John J. Padden of 40 acres of land claimed previously to have been conveyed by Michael Padden to the plaintiff, and for the quieting of plaintiff's title as against any claim of John J. Padden.

Michael Padden is the father of John J. Padden, James Padden, and of the plaintiff. On or about November 15, 1916, he was the owner of 80 acres of land. He executed a deed to 40 acres thereof, naming plaintiff as grantee, and a deed to the other 40 acres, naming James Padden as grantee. The deeds were drawn by one Hughes, who had from time to time transacted some business for the grantor, and they were handed to and kept by him. The trial court found:

That “at the time the deed was so handed to said Hughes it was understood between said Michael Padden and said Hughes, according to instructions then given by said grantor, that said Hughes should keep said deed subject to further order of said grantor, and that said Hughes should not record said deed, but that, in case said grantor should give no further directions in regard thereto in his lifetime, then the said Hughes should deliver the same to the plaintiff after the death of said grantor, Michael Padden; that at the time of the execution of said deed and the delivery thereof to said Hughes as aforesaid the said grantor, Michael Padden, had no intention of presently transferring the title in said premises to the plaintiff, but that his intention at the time was that such deed should operate as a testamentary document only and should have no effect during his lifetime; that there was no consideration for the execution of said deed except natural love and affection between grantor and grantee therein as father and son.”

A like finding was made in the case of James Padden. Henry and James Padden had used and occupied as pasture their respective 40-acre tracts for many years prior to the execution of the deeds to them, and Henry Padden had made improvements in the way of fencing and digging a well on his 40.

On August 20, 1918, Michael Padden for a consideration of $1,500 executed and delivered a warranty deed of the said 80 acres to the defendant John J. Padden with the intention of conveying title thereto to him. As an additional consideration John J. Padden agreed to pay Henry Padden for the improvements he had made on the 40 acres...