Wacker v. Wacker
| Citation | 48 S.W. 835,147 Mo. 246 |
| Parties | Wacker et al., Appellants, v. Wacker, Administrator, et al |
| Decision Date | 23 December 1898 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Gasconade Circuit Court. -- Hon. Rudolph Hirzel, Judge.
Affirmed.
B. L Matthews and Robert Walker for appellants.
(1) Under well established rules the delivery or gift of property by a father-in-law to his son-in-law, especially if made soon after marriage, is in law an advancement to the daughter. In this case there is evidence that the father John Henry Doermann, had in mind making an advancement to his daughter Louisa, as well as to his son, John. Bridgers v Hutchins, 11 Ired. 68; Wilson v. Wilson, 18 Ala. 176; Lindsay v. Platt, 9 Fla. 150; Stewart v. Pattison, 8 Gill 46; Dilley v. Love, 61 Md. 603; Rogers v. Mayer, 59 Miss. 524. (2) And an advancement is nothing less than an irrevocable gift of money or property, given by a parent to a child, in anticipation of such child's future share in the parent's estate. 1 Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law, 216; Woerner's Am. Law of Admin., sec. 552; Estate of Williams, 62 Mo.App. 339. (3) The sum of $ 3,850, contributed by John Henry Doermann toward the purchase of the farm in question, in February, 1882, was nothing more nor less than a gift made by the father to his two children, Louisa and John, and on purchase of the farm each of said children became the equitable owner in said land to the extent of $ 1,925. Rogers v. Mayer, 59 Miss. 524; Barbour v. Taylor, 9 Dana (Ky.), 86; Broughton v. Brand, 94 Mo. 169; Bispham on Eq., p. 126; Bartlett v. Umfried, 94 Mo. 530. (4) And upon the death of John Henry Doermann, the evidence is that said two children, Louisa and John, received together from their father's estate two mortgages, aggregating $ 2,600, as a balance coming to them jointly; that said John received and collected both said mortgages, and that said Louisa (or her husband, Henry Wacker) kept the farm as a result. Neither as to the sum received by the daughter after her father's death, nor as to the one half part of the $ 3,850 given to her on purchase of the farm in question, is there any evidence that said Louisa ever transferred any part thereof to her husband, Henry Wacker, in writing, so as to invest the latter with the property, and the same, therefore, belongs to plaintiffs. R. S. 1879, sec, 3296; Alkire Grocer Co. v. Ballinger, 137 Mo. 369; Broughton v. Brand, 94 Mo. 169; Ilgenfritz v. Ilgenfritz, 49 Mo.App. 127.
Kiskaddon & Meyer for respondents.
(1) To establish a resulting trust the evidence must be clear, strong and unequivocal, and such as to leave no room for reasonable doubt. Johnson v. Quarles, 46 Mo. 423; Burdett v. May, 100 Mo. 13; Ringo v. Richardson, 53 Mo. 385; Kennedy v. Kennedy, 57 Mo. 73; Allen v. Logan, 96 Mo. 591; Adams v. Burnes, 96 Mo. 561; Philpot v. Penn, 91 Mo. 38. (2) A mere voluntary conveyance will not raise a resulting trust, whether such conveyance be made directly or indirectly to the alleged trustee, or whether the alleged cestui que trust or some one else furnishes the purchase money. Shafter v. Huntington, 53 Mich. 310. (3) Nor can a resulting trust be raised contrary to the intention of both the alleged trustee and the alleged cestui que trust. White v. Carpenter, 2 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 217; Miller v. Blose, 30 Gratt. 745; Thompson v. Thompson, 18 Ohio St. 73; Edwards v. Edwards, 39 Pa. St. 369; Warren v. Steer, 112 Pa. St. 634. (4) Where a father, for the purpose of advancement to his daughter, purchases land and has it conveyed to his son-in-law, no trust results. Miller v. Blose, 30 Gratt. 745; Thompson v. Thompson, 18 Ohio St. 73; Baker v. Leathers, 3 Ind. 558; James v. James, 41 Ark. 301. (5) As to the claim that the interest of John Doermann was purchased by a part of the moneys of Louisa Wacker, it lacks, both in pleading and evidence, all the elements of certainty and clearness required to establish a resulting trust.
This is a bill in equity to declare a resulting trust in favor of plaintiffs, who are the children of Henry Wacker, deceased, by his first wife, Louisa, nee Doermann, in a tract of land conveyed to the said Henry Wacker for the consideration of $ 4,000, $ 3,850 of the purchase money for which was furnished by John H. Doermann, the father of the said Louisa. The defendants are the administrator, the widow and second wife of the said Henry Wacker, deceased; and a child born of the second marriage. All the evidence offered in the case was taken subject to objections. If so much of it as was incompetent had been ruled out, upon the offer, it must have become evident to counsel for plaintiffs even, that they had no case. The learned trial judge (Hirzel), however, took the case as it was given to him, and disposed of it in the following terse, yet comprehensive opinion:
To continue reading
Request your trial