Reel v. Reel

• Decision Date: 20 February 1906
• Citation: 52 S.E. 1023,59 W.Va. 106
• Parties: REEL v. REEL et al.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

52 S.E. 1023

59 W.Va. 106

REEL v. REEL et al.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

February 20, 1906

Syllabus by the Court.

One taking a deed for land knowing that another has a valid equitable title to the same land from the same vendor is held in equity as holding the legal title in trust for the benefit of the first purchaser, and equity will compel him to pass the legal title to such first purchaser.

An oral contract by a father to convey land to his son in consideration that he shall support the father is not enforceable in equity, unless the possession has been transferred to the son under the contract.

Though the grantor tender to the grantee a deed with intent to deliver it, yet, if the grantee refuse to accept it, it is not a perfected deed, and passes no title.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Randolph County.

Bill by James Reel against William C. Reel and others. Decree for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed.

Bent & Spears, for appellants.

Talbott & Hoover, for appellee.

BRANNON J.

James Reel filed a bill in equity in the circuit court of Randolph county against William C. Reel and Andrew Fansler, setting up that he was over 51 years of age, and until the winter of 1903 had lived with his father and mother on the farm; that his mother was dead, and one of two sisters was dead, and the other was the wife of Andrew Fansler; that the daughters upon marriage, had left home, but he remained; that, when 21 he told his father that he was going away from home to earn money for himself; that his father told him that he was his only son, and, if he would remain at home with his father and mother and aid in supporting and caring for them, he would give all the lands he might own at his death to him, James Reel; that he and his father made a definite agreement to that effect, the father agreeing to convey the lands to him at his death; that in execution of the agreement he remained at home with his father and mother, and worked on the farm with his father, clearing land, cropping the land, building a house on it for the family, paying the taxes, and sometimes working elsewhere for wages, and devoting his earnings to the support of the family; that his father, in execution of said agreement, went to Amos Canfield, and had him to draw a deed conveying two tracts of land, one of 31 1/2 acres, the other 56 acres, to said James Reel, and signed and acknowledged it that his father brought the deed home, and informed the plaintiff that he had placed said deed in a chest or drawer and told plaintiff to take it and have it recorded, but, as plaintiff seldom went to the county seat, he left the deed where his father had placed it; that afterwards, September 1, 1902, his father had conveyed to Andrew Fansler the same tracts in consideration of support and maintenance during life; that the deed was made and put on record, without the knowledge of the plaintiff; that Fansler was fully informed through years of the said agreement between William C. Reel and the plaintiff, and when he took the deed Fansler knew that William C. Reel had made the deed to the plaintiff, and had delivered it to him, though it had never been in the bands of the plaintiff or put on record; that Fansler had moved on the farm, driven plaintiff away, and was living on the farm with William C. Reel; that Fansler had fraudulently and corruptly induced William C. Reel to make the deed to him. The bill claims that the placing of the deed in the drawer was in law a delivery of it, and it sought to compel the defendants to surrender it to him, if in their possession, and, if not, to compel them to convey the land to the plaintiff, reserving a lien for the father's support; and, if that could not be done, that the lands be charged with $1,000 compensation for work and labor done and money spent by James Reel for his father, as a judgment for it would be unavailing against his father, as he was insolvent. William C. Reel and Fansler demurred to the bill for want of equity jurisdiction, and answered, denying that James Reel had supported him. William C. Reel admitted that for a short time prior to the year 1900 he did propose to make his son a deed for the land in consideration of support of himself and his wife, and that for a time James Reel agreed to the proposition, and it was a mutual understanding that such deed would be made; but the answer averred that finally the plaintiff refused to accept any such deed for the support and maintenence of his father and mother. The answer stated that James Reel simply lived at home, sharing in the product of the little farm along with other members of the family, until about the year 1900, when he (the father) did agree to convey to the son the land in consideration of such maintenance, but the son refused to consummate the agreement. The answer admits that on the 19th of January, 1900, William C. Reel did sign and acknowledge a deed whereby he intended to convey to his son the land, and that he informed his son that he had made the deed and offered it to him, and his son declined to accept it, and never did accept it, and authorized his father to convey the land to Fansler, and authorized him to make the deed to Fansler which he did make. Fansler admits that, when he took the deed for the land, he was aware of the existence of the said deed to James Reel; but that before the deed was made to him (Fansler) James Reel had declined to accept said deed, had declined to assume the obligation of supporting his father and mother, and that James Reel got possession of the said deed from his father to him, and delivered it to Fansler, and urged him to undertake the support of his father and mother, and after hesitation he (Fansler) agreed to do so, and accepted a deed for the land, which was executed with the full knowledge and consent of James Reel, and that he took possession under this deed, paid back taxes on the land, and ever since had been complying with his obligation to support William C. Reel. Fansler filed the said deed to James Reel from his father; it being in his possession. A decree in the case declared that the deed from William C. Reel to James Reel had been delivered to James Reel, and, the deed being filed in the papers, it was decreed that the legal title to the land was in James Reel, and gave him leave to withdraw said deed and place it on record. The deed to Fansler was canceled as in fraud of the right of James Reel. William C. Reel and Fansler appeal.

Equity jurisdiction is denied because, on the theory of the bill that the deed to James Reel was perfected by delivery, he could sue in ejectment, and, being out of possession, must sue at law, and not in equity, to remove a cloud; citing Smith v. O'Keefe, 43 W.Va. 172, 27 S.E. 353. If we held that the deed to James Reel was consummated by delivery, we must needs decide the question whether one holding legal title out of possession can sue in equity to remove a cloud arising from a second deed by the same grantor, taken with knowledge of the first; but we are of the opinion said deed was not perfected by delivery, which is an indispensable element in the elementary definition of a deed. Therefore we have a suit in equity by one claiming to have first an oral contract for the conveyance of land by a father to a son on consideration of work and labor at home for the...