Truman v. Truman

• Decision Date: 10 February 1890
• Citation: 44 N.W. 721,79 Iowa 506
• Parties: TRUMAN v. TRUMAN ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

79 Iowa 506

44 N.W. 721

TRUMAN

v.TRUMAN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Feb. 10, 1890.

Appeal from district court, Winneshiek county; C. T. GRANGER, Judge.

Action to enforce specific performance of an alleged gift of a certain tract of land to plaintiff's husband, and that the same be adjudged her homestead. The following facts appear without question: The plaintiff is the wife of defendant Joseph Truman, son of defendant Thomas Truman, whose only other child is Violet Parker. The plaintiff and Joseph were married in June, 1881, and thereafter resided together upon the half section of land described until in June, 1885, cultivating and managing the same as a farm; said Joseph Truman disposing of the products as his own. During that time permanent improvements, in the way of buildings and betterments, fencing, plowing, etc., were put upon the half section thus occupied. In June, 1885, plaintiff was taken to her father's house, where she has ever since resided separate and apart from her husband; he having abandoned her, and failed to provide for her. On June 5, 1885, Joseph Truman executed a chattel mortgage to his father, Thomas, on all of the property on the farm; and on the 13th of June gave his father authority, in writing, to take and dispose of said property. Thomas Truman was the owner of the half section of land described, and held the legal title thereto at and prior to 1881, and continued to hold the same until August, 1885, when he sold the same, together with said personal property, to the defendants L. R. and H. C. Brown, for $13,200. The only dwelling on the farm is situated on the S. E. 1/4 of the S. E. 1/4 of the section. Prior to the marriage of the plaintiff and Joseph, the house was occupied by a tenant, who worked a part of the farm, and with whom the defendant Joseph boarded while working the other part. Some time after their marriage, the tenant quit possession, and the plaintiff and her husband occupied the entire premises until June, 1885.

The plaintiff alleges that defendant Thomas, in consideration of love and affection, and that his son, Joseph, would accept and occupy the same, gave and delivered said farm to Joseph, in 1881; and Joseph accepted the same as owner, and took possession thereof, in 1881, and continued to occupy it as owner, with the plaintiff, and to cultivate and improve the same as owner thereof, and as their homestead. That in June, 1885, the defendants Thomas and Joseph Truman conspired together to defraud the plaintiff out of her marital rights in said premises; to effect which they combined to get the plaintiff off of said premises, and induced her to leave the same, and go to her father's house. That she never gave up her rights of homestead, but was induced to and did go to her father's house, leaving her household goods and other things belonging to her, as a wife, on the premises in question. That the plaintiff and her husband, while occupying said premises, put lasting and valuable improvements thereon, and that her husband has abandoned and left her without means of support. That the sale and conveyance to the Browns was not in good faith, but was made to defraud plaintiff, and that she is still entitled to the possession of the S. E. 1/4 of the S. E. 1/4 aforesaid, as her homestead.

The defendants, answering, denied that Thomas Truman ever gave said farm to his son, Joseph, but alleged the fact to be that, in the year 1881, said Thomas, desirous of testing his son's ability and industry to manage a farm successfully, permitted him to occupy the farm in controversy, and furnished him with means of stocking and working the farm, in pursuance of an express agreement between them that Joseph...