Stevenson v. Smith
| Decision Date | 15 June 1905 |
| Citation | 88 S.W. 86,189 Mo. 447 |
| Parties | STEVENSON et al., Appellants, v. SMITH et al |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Linn Circuit Court. -- Hon. Jno. P. Butler, Judge.
Reversed and remanded (with directions).
West & Bresnehen for appellants.
(1) Where land is purchased by one in his own name, with the money of another, a resulting trust is created by application of law, which follows the ownership of the money. And where a part only of the purchase money is furnished by the beneficiary, the trust is for a proportionate share of the land bought. Richardson v. Champion, 143 Mo. 538; Rice v. Shipley, 159 Mo. 899; Crawford v Jones, 163 Mo. 577; Jones v. Elkins, 143 Mo 647; Bowen v. McKean, 82 Mo. 594; In re Ferguson's Estate, 124 Mo. 574. Applying this doctrine to the undisputed facts of this case, it conclusively appears that the judgment of the lower court is wrong and that it must be reversed. (2) There is no evidence to support the defendant's allegation that the interest of his mother in the 240 acres of land bought was "only a dower interest therein for and during her natural life." In the absence of such proof, and under the facts of this case, the law itself fixes her interest at one-half of the land bought, not for life, but in fee. The allegation in defendant's answer that his mother was to have a life estate only, in one-half of the land, is wholly unsupported by the evidence, and is in conflict with the established principles of equity. (3) The evidence abundantly shows that each of the parties was entitled to one-half of the 240 acres of land, and the north 120 acres was recognized as the property of Rebecca Smith, and the south 120 as the property of the defendant, William Smith. This amounted to a verbal partition of the land.
E. R Stephens and A. W. Mullins for respondents.
(1) Although the conclusions of fact drawn by the trial court from the evidence in an equity case are not regarded by this court as conclusive, but subject to review, yet much deference is accorded such findings on account of the superior advantages the trial court possesses for weighing the evidence and judging of the credibility of the witnesses. Parker v. Roberts, 116 Mo. 667; Mathias v. O'Neill, 94 Mo. 529; Chouteau v. Allen, 70 Mo. 290; Sharp v. McPike, 62 Mo. 307; Dunivan v. Dunivan, 157 Mo. 157. (2) The evidence in this case did not support the plaintiffs' petition and was insufficient to authorize a decree for plaintiffs thereon. "The rule which prevails in this State, the general rule else-where upon the subject of resulting trusts, requires that in order to prove such a trust it must be established by testimony so clear, strong and unequivocal as to banish every reasonable doubt from the mind of the chancellor respecting the existence of such trust." Burdett v. May, 100 Mo. 13; Forrester v. Scoville, 51 Mo. 268; Ringo v. Richardson, 53 Mo. 385; Kennedy v. Kennedy, 57 Mo. 73; Philpot v. Penn, 91 Mo. 38; Dunivan v. Dunivan, 157 Mo. 157; 1 Greenl. on Evidence, sec. 200. (3) The defendant, William Smith, purchased the 240 acres of land described in the pleadings, from James O. Crandall, on May 29, 1884, and, it appears, paid on the purchase at that time, $ 450 in cash. This was his own money. There is not a particle of evidence to the contrary. Afterwards the Illinois land was sold, in which the widow, Rebecca Smith, had a dower interest. Then the defendant William Smith received from his mother $, 1,500, her dower money, and used that in part payment for said 240 acres of land; but before Crandall and wife deeded the land to William Smith, he had paid back to his mother the amount of said $ 1,500, and had in addition thereto furnished her considerable more money. We think the evidence shows this. When the deed to William Smith was executed by Crandall and wife, the widow, Rebecca Smith, was present and understood the transaction and was satisfied with it. There was no resulting trust created by that conveyance in favor of Rebecca Smith. 1 Perry on Trusts (3 Ed.), sec. 133 and note 3; 15 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.), 1137; Richardson v. Champion, 143 Mo. 544; Sell v. West, 125 Mo. 631. (4) The lapse of time and great delay on the part of the plaintiffs and Mrs. Smith, under whom they claim as heirs at law, in seeking to enforce the alleged trust against William Smith, the defendant, should of itself preclude the plaintiffs from recovering. Bliss v. Prichard, 67 Mo. 181; Burdett v. May, 100 Mo. 13; Reed v. Painter, 145 Mo. 341; Landis v. Saxton, 105 Mo. 486.
Rebecca Smith died intestate in October, 1901, in Linn county, owning no property in her own name and leaving the respondent William Smith, a son, and certain other sons and daughters, and the descendants of those dead, her only heirs at law. Certain of her surviving children, together with certain of her adult grandchildren, and certain minors of the same blood kin through their curator, brought this suit in August, 1902, against William Smith and certain minor non-resident grandchildren, and one Jackson Fyke and one J. C. Meacham, the object and general nature of which was to declare and establish a resulting trust in said William Smith in 120 acres of land in Linn county, described as follows: the north half of the southeast quarter, and the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of section 3, township 57, range 19, containing 120 acres more or less, in favor of the heirs of said Rebecca.
The interest of Jackson Fyke in the land remains undisclosed. The interest of defendant Meacham is alleged by the petition and admitted by the answer of William Smith to be that of a present purchaser of said real estate, together with an adjoining tract of 120 acres, lying adjacent and south of the land in question and owned by respondent William Smith from him, without notice of the said trust or the equities of Rebecca Smith's heirs, under an executory contract of purchase for $ 8,400, on which Meacham paid $ 250 as an advance payment -- the balance of the purchase money being due on March 1, 1903, and which contract of purchase the said Meacham was entitled to enforce, and by which, it is alleged in the petition, he obligated himself to pay one-half the entire purchase price, or $ 4,200, for so much of the said real estate as was held in trust.
The petition is a voluminous pleading, which, in substance and effect after setting forth the relationship of the parties and alleging their respective aliquot interests as heirs of Rebecca Smith, avers that Rebecca was the owner in fee of said 120 acres of land, that the legal title at her death and for many years prior thereto was and still is in the name of her son William, and that he held the same in trust for the use and benefit of Rebecca, his mother, and since her death in trust for her heirs. That in 1884 Rebecca Smith owned a large amount of money and personal property, and placed $ 3,500 thereof in the hands of her son William to invest in real estate in Linn county for her use and benefit, that the said William purchased the described real estate with $ 2,400 of the said money and means of his mother in pursuance of an understanding with her to that effect, but took the legal title in his own name and thereafter held it in trust as aforesaid. That William, ever since said purchase, and until the death of his mother, acknowledged and recognized the trust relation. That in 1898 he borrowed $ 3,000 and secured it by a trust deed covering the said trust estate, as well as the said tract of 120 acres, lying immediately south and adjoining the same, and which said borrowed money remains unpaid, and which said trust deed is alive and in force. That the security of said trust deed should be first enforced and exhausted against the 120 acres of land owned by William in fee. That William Smith is insolvent. That the $ 4,200 to be paid by Meacham for the land held in trust, the premises considered, constitute a trust fund belonging to and subject to division between the heirs of Rebecca Smith. That defendant William refuses longer to recognize the trust relation and refuses to account to the other heirs for the proceeds of any part of the said real estate and threatens to and will convert the same to his own use.
The prayer is for a decree that William Smith holds the legal title to said first mentioned real estate in trust for the use, benefit and enjoyment of the heirs of Rebecca Smith. That the said heirs be decreed entitled to the proceeds of one-half of the Meacham sale in the proportion stated in the petition. That $ 4,200 of the Meacham purchase money should be decreed paid into court for the use and benefit of said heirs and that upon such payment into court of said trust fund and the payment by Meacham to William Smith of the share of the purchase money arising from the sale of Smith's own land, the title to all the land be decreed vested in Meacham, and that the share of the purchase money impressed with the said trust be partitioned among the heirs of Rebecca Smith in proportion to their respective interests, and that the $ 3,000 deed of trust be decreed to be first enforced against William's moiety of the land, or be satisfied out of his share of the proceeds of the Meacham sale.
The separate answer of the defendant William Smith raises the only issues (the other defendants defaulting), and after admitting the death and intestacy of Rebecca Smith as alleged, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial