Smith v. Muse

• Decision Date: 30 March 1925
• Docket Number: 24802
• Citation: 138 Miss. 518,103 So. 356
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: SMITH et al v. MUSE et at. [*]

103 So. 356

138 Miss. 518

SMITH et al v. MUSE et at. ^[*]

No. 24802

Supreme Court of Mississippi

March 30, 1925

Division A

(Division A.).

EQUITY Title acquired against guardian by possession for ward under mistake of law, equity affording no relief in such cases.

Where under mistake of law as to the effect of a will, induced by advice of counsel, a guardian, though owner of land, holds it for the ward for the statutory period, disclaiming any interest in herself, title is effectually vested in the ward equity not relieving where a party mistakes the law as to his private legal rights.

HON. V. J. STRICKER, Chancellor.

APPEAL from chancery court of Madison county, HON. V. J. STRICKER, Chancellor.

Suit by J. P. Smith and others against E. W. Muse and others. From adverse decree, complainants appeal. Affirmed.

See, also, 134 Miss. 827, 98 So. 436.

Judgment affirmed.

H. B. Greaves, for appellants.

The only question here involved is, does the fact that Mrs. M. P. Muse, who was the true owner of the land, by inheritance from her husband, and who was guardian of Martha Muse, her non compos kinswoman, lose her title by the statute of limitation, because Mrs. M. P. Muse, acting upon the advice of her attorneys considered the lands her ward's under the provisions of a will, which this court has recently declared void in Smith v. Muse, 134 Miss. 826.

To acquire title by adverse possession it must be adverse, exclusive and continuous. In this case, M. P. Muse who was guardian of Martha, the non compos, was advised that this land was "entailed" and descended under J. L. Muse's will at the death of her (M. P. Muse's) husband, B. F. Muse, to Martha Muse, her ward. Acting on this advice, M. P. Muse credited Martha Muse, her ward, with such rents, issues and profits as were received from the land in question, believing the land belonged to her ward, and dies under this impression. But the will of J. L. Muse was void, and was so held by this court in J. P. Smith v. E. W. Muse, 134 Miss. 827.

It is perfectly manifest that the possession and occupation of the lands here in dispute being in Mrs. M. P. Muse, widow of B. F. Muse, from the death of her husband up to her death, was not adverse to her own title. It is well-established law that where possession is concurrent, no title can be acquired by either party in the land on the grounds of adverse holding. Mrs. Muse was manifestly in possession. It is true she stated she did not claim the lands as against her ward, and acted on this by crediting her ward's estate with the rents, issues and profits.

Again it is equally true that had some other person been guardian of Martha Muse for ten or twenty years, and Mrs. M. P. Muse had, under the mistaken idea that the land belonged to the non compos, surrendered possession to such guardian, who held for his ward for the time necessary under the statute, the title would have ripened in the non compos by limitation. And it is likewise true that if another person had been guardian, and Mrs. Muse had refused to surrender possession, this court would have decided the land belonged to M. P. Muse.

Where the owner and another are in possession the mixed or joint possession was referable to the title. See part of opinion of CAMPBELL, C. J., Claughlin v. Claughlin, 70 Miss. 387; Hamilton v. Moore, (La.) 67 So. 523.

I respectfully submit that Magee v. Keegan, 35 Miss. 246, is not such a case as the instant case, and if this court thinks that case is good law in a like case, it ought not to apply here as the facts are different.

Ray & Spivey, for appellees.

The facts in this case are undisputed. The only issue presented is a question of law as to whether or not title inures to the benefit of the ward through a holding of a guardian claiming for the ward.

M. P. Muse not only claimed and held said land as the property of her ward, but, on two different occasions, in 1897 and 1913, in suits involving this land, filed her sworn pleadings in the chancery court of Madison county, Mississippi, wherein she solemnly and specifically denied having any sort of interest personally in said land, but avowed and declared that said land was in truth and in fact the property of her ward, Martha Muse.

The law of the case is fully covered in Magee v. Keegan, 35 Miss. 244. This is the only case in point which we have been able to find in this or any other jurisdiction. The soundness of the doctrine announced in the case of Magee v. Keegan, cannot be successfully attacked. As stated by counsel for appellant, in his brief, if any other person had been guardian of Martha Muse than M. P. Muse, then there could have been no question whatever, but that M. P. Muse would have lost all title to said land long ago, and said title would have become vested absolutely in Martha Muse. Can the right of this non compos mentis, Martha Muse, have been prejudiced merely because M. P. Muse happened to be her guardian?

M. P. Muse, should she have attempted to claim any title to said land, after the sworn pleadings filed by her in 1897 and 1913 disavowing any interest therein, would have been estopped and the same estoppel would unquestionably apply to appellants, who claimed as heirs of M. P. Muse.

We, therefore, respectfully submit that the decree of the learned chancellor in the court below should be in no wise disturbed.

OPINION

MCGOWEN, J.

This cause is submitted to us upon an agreed statement of facts, which statement is as follows:

"Come the parties to the above-styled cause by their attorneys of record, and agree: That the following agreed statement of facts and the judgment of the court rendered thereon shall constitute the transcript of the record in this cause appealed from the chancery court of Madison county to the supreme court of Mississippi, and that the two documents shall be certified as such and be considered a full transcript in the supreme court of Mississippi for the consideration and final adjudication of this case, and which facts are as follows:

"James L. Muse died, testate, in 1857, leaving a will, which was, by this court, in the year 1924, in the case of Smith et al. v. Muse et al., 134 Miss. 827, 98 So. 436, record No. 23432, held void under our statutes against perpetuities. In this case, the court held that each of the original seven devisees of James L. Muse, deceased, took their respective interests in his estate in fee simple.

"In 1872, the devisees of James L. Muse, deceased, partitioned his lands among themselves, when there was allotted to B. F. Muse that certain tract of land described as: twenty-four acres off south end of northeast quarter, southeast quarter and south half, southeast quarter, and eighteen acres off south end of Southeast quarter, southwest quarter, section 11, township 9, range 3 east.

"B. F. Muse died in 1897, without issue, and left as his sole and only heirs at law, his widow, Mrs. M. P. Muse. B. F. Muse was the last surviving devisee of James L. Muse, except Martha Muse, who survived the said B. F. Muse, and died intestate in 1923, leaving the appellees as her sole and only heirs at law.

"Immediately after the death of B. F. Muse, his widow, Mrs. M. P. Muse, qualified as the legal guardian of Martha Muse, who had, at all times since infancy to the time of her death, been non compos mentis. The said Mrs. M. P. Muse was advised by counsel, and acted on this advice and believed, that the lands above described were the property of Martha Muse, and that she held them as such, and accounted to her said ward for the rents thereon during the entire time of her guardianship, and up to the time of the death of Mrs. M. P. Muse, in 1921.

"In 1896, appellees filed their exception to the appointment of Mrs. M. P. Muse as guardian of Martha Muse, alleging the conflict of interest with respect to the above-described land as one of the reasons why Mrs. M. P. Muse was not a suitable guardian for Martha Muse. Mrs. M. P. Muse filed her answer to said exceptions (see case reported Muse v. Muse, 76 Miss. 372, 24 So. 168), and specifically alleged that she held the above-described lands for her said ward, and that said lands were the property of her said ward.

"In 1913, appellees against filed suit against Mrs. M. P. Muse for an accounting on account of her guardianship of Martha Muse. Mrs. M. P. Muse filed her sworn answer in this suit, wherein she again alleged that she held the above-described lands as the property of her said ward, and accounted to said ward for the rents, issues, and profits therefrom.

"Mrs. M. P. Muse died, intestate, in 1921, and left as her heirs at law all of the appellants and all of the appellees in this cause.

"J. P. Smith and others filed their bill for partition of a large tract of land, which was in possession of the said Mrs. M. P. Muse at the time of her death, including the lands herein described. Appellees, as the sole and only heirs at law of Martha Muse, deceased, filed their cross-bill, alleging title to the above-described lands in themselves, by descent and distribution, through the said Martha Muse, deceased.

"That the pleadings in this case raise only one issue, and that this appeal is taken for the sole purpose of determining this issue, which is as follows:

"Mrs. M. P. Muse, as guardian, held the aforesaid lands as the property of her said ward, Martha Muse, under the advice of counsel, and believed it was the property of Martha Muse, continuously and uninterruptedly, from 1897 to the time of her death in 1921. And the guardian and administrator of the estate of the said Martha Muse has held said lands since that time and still holds the same.

"The lower court held that title vested in Martha Muse by adverse possession through the holding...