Roberts v. Walker

• Decision Date: 17 November 1890
• Citation: 101 Mo. 597,14 S.W. 631
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: ROBERTS <I>et al.</I> v. WALKER.

14 S.W. 631

101 Mo. 597

ROBERTS et al. v. WALKER.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

November 17, 1890.

TRUSTS — PART PERFORMANCE — WIFE'S SEPARATE ESTATE.

1. Where a legal title to land is sought to be impressed with an unwritten equitable charge, the evidence to support the latter must clearly preponderate.

2. Even prior to the married women's act of 1875, (Rev. St. 1879, § 3296,) a husband might invest his wife's antenuptial chattel property with the character of separate estate in equity, by agreement and a uniform course of conduct thereto during their marriage.

3. Property received by the wife after her husband's death, by virtue of such an agreement, could not constitute a part performance of, or valid consideration for, an alleged parol contract in the nature of jointure.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from circuit court, Andrew county; GRUBB, Judge.

This is the second appeal in this cause, the first being reported (under the same style) in 82 Mo. 200. The petition and general nature of the case are stated quite fully there. The suit is in equity to enforce an alleged contract or settlement in the nature of jointure, said to have been made between Joseph Walker and defendant during the life of the former. The petition proceeds on the theory that Joseph Walker, prior to the enactment of the law of 1875 (Rev. St. 1879, § 3296) concerning married women, had acquired, by virtue of his marriage with defendant, a considerable amount of property, formerly hers, and had reduced it to possession; that afterwards, he proposed that upon his death she should receive and take such of her former property as then remained, in lieu of all claim on her part for dower and homestead; that, having assented thereto, she took the property in question after his death, amounting in value to several thousand dollars, but still held possession of the mansion house, and claimed all her rights of dower and homestead, in disregard of the agreement mentioned. The answer, besides a general denial, stated as an affirmative defense that, at the time of her marriage to Joseph Walker, she was possessed of a large estate in chattels, consisting of horses, etc., and that the same remained and constituted her separate and sole estate afterwards, and that her husband never claimed, in his life time, to own, control, or intermeddle with any part of her said estate. She also admitted possession of the premises mentioned, claiming that her dower had not been admeasured to her, etc. The reply put the new matter of the answer in issue. The foregoing is merely an outline of the pleadings, but sufficient for the purposes of this appeal. The cause was tried by the court, and a great amount of evidence heard. It appeared, among other things, that defendant and Joseph Walker intermarried somewhat late in life, and that each had at the time children by a former...