Smith v. Hainline

• Citation: 253 S.W. 1049
• Decision Date: 28 April 1923
• Docket Number: No. 23589.,23589.
• Parties: SMITH et al. v. HAINLINE.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

253 S.W. 1049

SMITH et al. v. HAINLINE.

No. 23589.

Supreme Court of Missouri, in Banc.

April 28, 1923.

Motion for Rehearing Overruled Aug. 14, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; O. A. Lucas, Judge.

Suit by Made E. Smith and others against Josephine Hainline. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Reed & Harvey, of Kansas City, for appellant.

Walsh & Aylward, James P. Aylward, John H. Lucas, and William C. Lucas, all of Kansas City, for respondents.

WALKER, J.

This was a suit in equity to determine the title to a leasehold interest in a certain lot or parcel of land located at 1209-1211 Walnut street, Kansas City, described as lot 39, block 3, McGee's addition. The lease was for a term of 99 years. It had approximately 89 years to run from the date of the death of William F. Smith, in May, 1920, who was one of the lessees of same and owned an undivided one-half interest in the lease.

The plaintiff Made E. Smith is the widow of William F. Smith and the administratrix of his estate. The other plaintiffs are, respectively, the daughter and son of the deceased.

The defendant Josephine Hainline is alleged to claim some title or an interest in the lease; and the defendant Charles Moore, the then recorder of Jackson county, was made a party defendant to enjoin him from receiving for record or recording any conveyance affecting the title to the lot until the further orders of the court.

The petition was in two counts. The first was framed in the conventional terms of an action to quiet title. The second contained in effect the following allegations:

That William F. Smith died in May, 1920, and at the time of his death he was seized and possessed of an undivided one-half interest in the leasehold on the property in question and that said leasehold descended to the plaintiffs upon the death of William F. Smith, as his heirs at law.

That during the year 1917, the said William P. Smith signed, executed, and delivered to the defendant Josephine Hainline a certain warranty deed to said lot, and while said deed on its face appeared to be an absolute conveyance, it was made with the [express] agreement and understanding between said Smith and the defendant Josephine Hainline that any and all of the interest of the said Smith in said leasehold was assigned and conveyed to her without consideration, to be held by her in trust for the use and benefit of said Smith and the plaintiffs herein, his sole heirs at law, who are the beneficial owners thereof.

That the said Josephine Hainline has admitted [in writing] that she so held the lot in trust as aforesaid at and prior to the death of William F. Smith, but that she has since his death and is now attempting to assert a claim to and ownership of said leasehold interest as against the plaintiffs who are the owners of same.

In her answer the defendant Hainline admits that William F. Smith in the year 1917 assigned the one-half interest in the leasehold described in plaintiffs' petition to this defendant, and that she now claims title to the same. Further answering, she denies generally the allegations of plaintiffs' petition.

The reply was a general denial.

The case was tried in one of the divisions of the circuit court of Kansas City presided over by Judge Olaf A. Lucas, without a jury, at the May term, 1921. At the close of plaintiffs' case the court, over the defendant's objection, permitted plaintiffs to amend their petition by striking out of the second count the words "express" and "in writing" as the same appear in brackets in the above abstract of the petition.

No testimony was offered on the part of the defense.

The attitude of the defendant Hainline is that the plaintiffs pleaded an express trust which under the statute of frauds could be proved only by a writing signed by the defendant or her authorized agent, and that in the absence of such testimony plaintiffs should not be permitted to recover.

The trial began June 30, 1921, and continued several days, when the case was taken under advisement by the court. Thereafter, October 19, 1921, the court rendered its decree in favor of the plaintiffs. The material portions of the same in the ordinary vernacular rather than in the usual terminology of such entries, in which it is expressed, are as follows:

That William F. Smith died May 6, 1920, leaving at his death as his only heirs at law the plaintiffs, Made E. Smith, his widow, Mildred E. Smith, his daughter, and James P. Smith, his son. And thereafter the said Made E. Smith was appointed and is now the. qualified and acting administratrix of his estate.

That at the time of his death, and for many years immediately prior thereto, he was the owner of an undivided one-half interest in a certain 99-year leasehold estate, the unexpired period thereof being approximately 89 years, said lease being upon the premises, improvements, and appurtenances thereof located in Kansas City and described as: Here follows a description of the lot as set forth in the foregoing statement.

That on the 26th day of October, 1916, the said William F. Smith, and his wife, Made E. Smith, executed and delivered to the defendant Josephine Hainline a certain written instrument and conveyance, without consideration therefor, transferring and conveying to the said defendant the legal title to said undivided one-half interest in and to the leasehold estate, and that the said defendant did not acquire thereby, and never has had therein, any right, title, interest; or possession of, in, and to said leasehold estate, but held, and now holds, the legal title thereto in trust for the use and benefit of the said William F. Smith, deceased, and the plaintiff's herein, who are his sole and only heirs at law, and the true and beneficial owners thereof.

It is therefore considered, ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the legal title to the said leasehold interest above described be and the same is hereby divested from and out of the said defendant Josephine Hainline, and is hereby adjudged, decreed, and declared to be invested and established in the plaintiffs; and the court further finds that defendant Charles Moore is the recorder of deeds of Jackson county, and the temporary injunction heretofore issued as against the said Charles Moore, enjoining him from filing or accepting for record any purported conveyance from the said Josephine Hainline or any vendee of hers to the above-described leasehold, and from registering or recording any instrument or conveyance from her or any vendee of hers to said leasehold, or affecting the title thereto, is hereby made permanent, and that the plaintiffs have and recover of and from the defendant Josephine or Josie Hainline, who are one and the same person, their costs herein incurred and expended and that plaintiffs have hereof execution.

From this judgment the defendant Hainline has appealed to this court.

I. Portions of the testimony which tend to show the manner in which the defendant Hainline held this title are pertinent as cogent facts in the determination of the issue in this case. They are as follows:

William F. Smith died intestate, leaving his widow and two children as stated. The defendant Josephine Hainline was at the time of his death and for years prior thereto his confidential secretary. Her duties were multifarious. Their inventory would serve no purpose here except to manifest from the variety and importance of her duties, whether assumed or imposed, the confidence reposed in her by her employer. In addition to her supervisory direction and control of his personal affairs and business transactions, she was the secretary of the William F. Smith Realty & Investment Company, under which corporate name he held all of the real estate owned by him, except the leasehold interest here in controversy which was held by her in the manner hereinafter stated: On the 26th day of October, 1916, William F. Smith and his wife executed a warranty deed to the defendant Hainline which was filed for record September 15, 1917. This deed conveyed several parcels of real estate, one of which was the leasehold property in question. Upon this transfer no consideration whatever passed, and the only evidence of delivery is the presumption arising from the recording thereof.

In a deposition taken a few months before the death of Wm. F. Smith, in his presence and in the presence of his attorney, the defendant Hainline made the following admissions:

"Q. Did you pay anything for the lease? A. I did not.

"Q. You just consider that you are holding it for Mr. Wm. F. Smith? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. Were you told by Mr. Smith at that time that the property was being transferred because of the separation? A. I was not told anything. They didn't even consult me in the matter whether they could put it in my name.

"Q. Have you any property in your name? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. What property? A. The lease at 1209-1211 Walnut street.

"Q. Now, how long has it been in your name, Miss Hainline? A. Since about September, 1917; I think that was the date.

"Q. Have you any other real estate or personal property that you haven't told me about? A. None that I remember of.

"Mr. Bush (Smith's attorney): When you say you are receiving money, you don't contend for a minute any of this property is yours, do you? A. No, sir."

"Q. Now, omitting Mr. Smith's name and the realty company's name, have you any other personal property in your own or that you are holding for any one else? A. I am not holding any—any personal property for anybody.

"Q. Outside of what has been told here? A. Outside of what has been told here.

"Q. Does that apply to real property? A. Real estate?

"Q. Yes. A. Well, I don't know of any that is in my name. I have none. Personally, I don't have any.

"Q. I see. You don't know of any other that is being held by you, in your name? A. I do not; no, sir."

On September 4, 1917, William F. Smith organized the W. F. Smith Realty & Investment...