Trask v. Trask
| Decision Date | 05 February 1894 |
| Parties | ALTHEA TRASK, Appellant, v. CHAS. G. TRASK |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Buchanan District Court.--HON. JOHN J. NEY, Judge.
THIS is a suit in equity, and involves the rights of the plaintiff and the defendant in certain real estate and personal property once owned by Ami H. Trask, now deceased. There was a decree in the district court for the defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Charles E. Ransier for appellant.
E. E Hasner and H. W. Holman for appellee.
Ami H Trask was a resident of the city of Independence, in this state. He died in the month of June, 1891, at the age of about sixty-eight years. The plaintiff is his widow, and the defendant is his son. He was twice married. The defendant is the son of his first wife. He married the plaintiff about twenty years before his death. His death was neither sudden nor unexpected. It was caused by the fatal disease known as cancer. The defendant was the only child born to him, and at the time of the father's death the son was about twenty-seven years old, and was married. The plaintiff never had any offspring. During the life of Ami H. Trask, he accumulated property of the value of from thirty to forty thousand dollars. It consisted of farms, a livery barn and livery stock, and city lots and bank stock, and other property. When he married the plaintiff, she had an estate in her own right, the value of which does not very clearly appear. It consisted in part of a dwelling house and some city lots. It does not appear that she at any time transferred any of her property to the deceased. In January, 1891, Mr. Trask went to Hot Springs, Arkansas, for treatment of the malady with which he was afflicted. Before making that trip he made his last will and testament, and also a deed of what was known as the Livery Barn Property, and what was known as his Sumner Township Farm. This deed was made to his son. It was signed and acknowledged by him and his wife, the plaintiff herein. At the same time he made to his son a bill of sale of his personal property. All of these written instruments were placed in an envelope, and delivered to the cashier of a bank. The deceased owned other real estate, which was then not disposed of. He returned from the Hot Springs in the April following. After his return there was a misunderstanding in regard to the deed, so far as it was a conveyance of the Summer township farm. The plaintiff herein claimed that there was a mistake; that she did not understand that the deed conveyed the said farm. This claimed misunderstanding led to a readjustment of the matter, and the deceased and his wife each consulted attorneys, and the attorneys conferred with each other. A final arrangement was made by the parties, which was intended as a settlement of all their property rights. This was amicable, and appears to have been really agreed upon by the deceased and his wife, without any interference of any one. It was in pursuance of advice given by the attorneys of both the husband and wife. The attorneys did not advise as to the amount Trask should give his wife. That matter was settled by the parties themselves. In pursuance of this arrangement conveyances were made of all the remainder of the real estate owned by Trask, which deeds Mrs. Trask signed and acknowledged. A deed was made by Mrs. Trask of all her real estate to her adopted daughter, and Mr. Trask joined therein, and released any prospective right he might have in her property. Up to this time the envelope containing the will and the deed to the Sumner township farm and livery barn property, and the said bill of sale; remained in the bank. On the day that the final settlement was made, the envelope containing these instruments was taken from the bank, because it had been claimed that Mrs. Trask had not intended to execute a deed for the Sumner township farm; and a new acknowledgment was written thereto, by which she again acknowledged its execution. When this was done, and as part of this full settlement, the deceased paid to his wife the sum of three thousand, five hundred dollars, by a bank check, which was in these words:
On the same day the will and bill of sale of the personal property and the deed of the Sumner township farm were replaced in the same envelope and returned to the bank.
This action is grounded upon the alleged fact that the deed of the Sumner township farm and the bill of sale of the personal property did not pass the title of the property to the defendant, because they were not delivered to him. This is the only real question in the case. If the delivery of the envelope containing these instruments to the bank passed the title of the property therein, the decree of the district court should be affirmed. If it did not pass the title, the decree should be reversed. Counsel for the respective parties have argued this question at great length and with much ability. They have presented a multitude of adjudicated cases upon the question. If we were to cite and comment upon all these cases, this opinion would fill a large part of a volume of our reports, and such a review of authorities would serve no useful purpose. The rule is well settled. The difficulty arises in determining, under the facts disclosed in evidence, what rule of law applies. It is well...
To continue reading
Request your trial