Stone v. Wash. Duvall

• Citation: 1875 WL 8341,77 Ill. 475
• Parties: GEORGE STONE et al.v.WASHINGTON DUVALL et al.
• Decision Date: 30 June 1875
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

77 Ill. 475

1875 WL 8341 (Ill.)

GEORGE STONE et al.

v.WASHINGTON DUVALL et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June Term, 1875.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Monroe county; the Hon. AMOS WATTS, Judge, presiding.

This was a bill in chancery, filed by Washington Duvall and Mary Duvall, his wife, against George Stone, Julia Stone, Pearly Stone and Bissell Davis, heirs at law of Mary Stone, deceased, and William Stone, husband of Mary Stone, to set aside a deed made by the complainants to said Mary Stone. The material facts of the case are set forth in the opinion of the court.

Mr. WILLIAM WINKELMAN, for the plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. HENCKLER & TALBOTT, for the defendants in error.

Mr. JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

The evidence shows that defendants in error had each been previously married, Washington having a daughter by that former marriage, who was married to William Stone; Mary had a son by her previous marriage, named Allen Agnew. They each owned a small amount of real estate when married, and discord afterwards having arisen between them, it was agreed that they should respectively relinquish or convey their claim to each other's property, so that the survivor would have no interest in the real estate of the other--to cut off the claim of dower by the wife in the property of the husband, and the right of curtesy of the husband in the property of the wife, and to prevent their step children from claiming any interest in the property of their step parents.

In consummating this arrangement, defendants in error went to a justice of the peace, who, under their directions, prepared deeds which they executed and acknowledged. By one of these deeds the land owned by the husband was conveyed in fee to his daughter, Mrs. Mary Stone. By the other, the wife's real estate was conveyed to Allen Agnew. The justice was directed to have the deeds recorded, and to hold them until the death of the parties, and then deliver them to the respective grantees. Subsequently Mrs. Stone died, leaving her husband, and the other defendants, her minor children, surviving her. The deeds were recorded, as required, by the justice of the peace, and held until after Mrs. Stone's death, when Duvall called and took the deed executed to her from the justice. It appears that Stone, with his wife, was in possession of the property conveyed to his wife when the deeds were made, and he so continued in possession until after the suit was brought.

Complainants claim that the deed to Mrs. Stone was not made in pursuance of their intentions, and contrary to their directions; that the deed was never delivered to the grantee, or to any one for her, and they asked to have it set aside and cancelled, and the property restored to Duvall, as it was before the deed was made. On a hearing, the court below granted the relief sought, and defendants bring the record to this court on error, and ask a reversal.

The evidence of the justice of the peace seems to be rather indefinite as to what the expressed purpose of the parties was when he drew the deeds. He is, however, positive that he was directed to prepare deeds to convey the land. He proposed to fix the matter by agreement, will or otherwise, but Duvall declined, saying his wife desired deeds. He, when asked the direct question whether the purpose was not to convey Duvall's interest in his wife's property to her son, and any interest she held in Duvall's property to Mrs. Stone, and whether Duvall did not so inform him, says he believes that was the meaning, but that he could not swear to the exact words. He also says that he was afterwards so informed by Mrs. Duvall. He nowhere says that it was understood or intimated that the parties intended or said they desired to retain any interest in the property. By a conveyance in fee, they undeniably would accomplish the purpose of preventing such claims as effectually as by any other mode; and it is strange, if such was the intention, that they did not say that was their only purpose.

Duvall told Stone that he intended to convey the property to his wife, as Stone states in his sworn answer. The deed having been subsequently made in accordance with this declaration, and in pursuance to the advice received from the attorney, a different purpose from that expressed in the deed should be clearly proved, before a court of chancery would interfere to set it aside. The deed itself, in proper form and duly executed, is strong evidence of the grantor's intention, and to overcome it, the evidence should be clear and...