Watson v. Watson
| Decision Date | 07 January 1901 |
| Docket Number | 154 |
| Citation | 47 A. 1096,198 Pa. 234 |
| Parties | Watson v. Watson |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued October 29, 1900 [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Appeal, No. 154, Oct. T., 1900, by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. No. 1, Allegheny County, March T., 1898, No. 200, on verdict for defendant in case of Mary W. D. Watson v. Samuel Watson. Affirmed.
Ejectment to recover an undivided one-fourth interest in land in the tenth ward of the city of Allegheny. Before SLAGLE, J.
At the trial the court directed the jury to find a verdict for the defendant.
Verdict and judgment for defendant.
On a motion for a new trial, SLAGLE, J., filed the following opinion:
This is an action of ejectment to recover an undivided one-fourth interest in ten acres of land in the tenth ward, Allegheny.
The plaintiff claims title as devisee of her husband, Alexander M. Watson, deceased.
The land in dispute is part of a larger tract, about 165 acres, owned by James Watson, father of defendant and of Alexander M. Watson. James Watson, by his will, dated May 15, 1857, proved September 5, 1866, devised said ten acres to his son James, and the remainder of said tract to his six sons, Robert, John, James, Alexander, Charles and Samuel.
John Watson, by will dated August 30, 1875, proved February 9, 1876, devised his interest in said land to Samuel Watson. And Robert Watson, by deed dated November 5, 1868, conveyed his interest in the same to Samuel Watson.
Charles Watson died intestate about 1861, leaving to survive him one son, Charles J. Watson.
Proceedings in bankruptcy were had against Robert, James, Samuel and Alexander M. Watson, and their several interests in said land were conveyed by the register to David Hostetter, who by general deed conveyed the same to Samuel George, Jr.
Samuel George, Jr., by deed dated April 1, 1880, conveyed said interests to Robert Watson, to whom James, Samuel and Alexander, with their wives, by deed of April 3, 1880, conveyed and released all their several interests.
Robert Watson, by mortgage dated August 1, 1885, in which Charles J. Watson joined, conveyed said land to William Thaw to secure a certain indebtedness therein set forth.
Robert Watson died intestate April 8, 1888, and letters of administration were issued to James Watson.
Upon this mortgage a scire facias was issued and judgment obtained for $115,807.67, upon which the property was sold and conveyed to William Thaw by sheriff's deed of July 21, 1888, who by deed of August 25, 1888, conveyed the same to Samuel Watson, taking from him a bond and mortgage for $130,000.
After the issue of the scire facias on the above mentioned mortgage and judgment thereon, a paper dated June 30, 1888, signed by all the heirs at law of Robert Watson, was presented to Mr. Thaw with request as follows: "In case said lands are purchased by you at sheriff's sale, that the same may be conveyed by you absolutely to Samuel Watson upon his securing to you in such manner as shall be satisfactory to you the debt now due to you," etc.
The record showed a title to all this land in Samuel Watson in fee simple, and the paper of June 30, 1888, freed it from any implication of trust in favor of his cotenants or of any title remaining in them by reason of his purchase of the common property.
The plaintiff claimed that "by arrangement and agreement between William Thaw and Alexander M. Watson and Samuel Watson, on behalf of said Alexander, James, Charles and Samuel Watson, and in their behalf, without any consideration excepting the payment to be thereafter made of the indebtedness to William Thaw, deed from said William Thaw and wife to Samuel Watson, the defendant, dated August 25, 1888, and recorded in deed book 624, p. 103, whereby the said Samuel Watson became trustee in behalf of the said Alexander M., James, Charles and himself."
After hearing all the evidence in the case the court instructed the jury that their verdict should be for defendant. This for several reasons: First, that there was no sufficient evidence to show any trust; second, that if any trust were created, not being in writing, it was barred by the statute of limitations; third, if the evidence was sufficient to show a trust not barred by the statute, it was an active trust which could be enforced in equity only, and not such as could be enforced by ejectment; and we might add that plaintiff's rights had been settled by the parties by agreement in a former suit for the same land.
There was no formal declaration of trust in favor of Alexander M. Watson or in favor of plaintiff for the land in dispute. There were certain deeds and writings, offered in evidence which plaintiff claims recognizes a trust in her favor.
The first in time is an agreement in writing between William Thaw and Samuel Watson, August 28, 1888; the date of the deed of Mr. Thaw to Samuel Watson reciting: "Whereas by reason of the increase in the value of said land it is believed that the amount of said mortgage indebtedness can be realized by sale of a portion of said land in lots, but said William Thaw does not wish to retain the ownership thereof and has been and is willing to convey the same to the former owners thereof or to such person as they shall name subject to the payment of the claims against the same."
2. A deed of Samuel Watson to Charles J. Watson of same date, August 25, 1888, in which it is recited: "Whereas, the said land conveyed to Samuel Watson, as aforesaid, though conveyed to him absolutely, was in fact taken by him and has always since been held by him in trust as to an undivided one fifth thereof to Charles J. Watson of Union City, Tennessee, subject to the payment by Charles J. Watson of one fifth of said mortgage indebtedness." And in pursuance thereto a declaration of trust was declared of an undivided one fifth of land after payment of debts, etc., to be conveyed to him. This included the entire farm of 165 acres.
Two other papers were offered in evidence and admitted under objection.
Exhibit "No. 3" was an unsigned memorandum in the handwriting of Mr. Rodgers, Samuel Watson's attorney, and given by defendant to J. D. Watson, son and attorney of Mrs. Watson, the plaintiff, as follows:
Exhibit "No. 4" is alleged to be a copy of a paper which John D. Watson testified was handed to him by Mr. Woodward, dated May 14, 1892, as follows:
"I also insist upon a correct settlement of the brickyard property so that from this on I will have no annoyance or trouble from that source; and further, I must have an allowance sufficient to compensate me for the management of the whole estate; and further, until the debt is paid off I shall not be subject to any accounting further than the payment of the debt, the time of distribution." Signed S.W.
These exhibits "3 and 4" were objected to because they were unsigned and appeared to be offers of compromise of a suit then pending or threatened.
That suit was brought at No. 511, September term, 1892, in which Mrs. Watson, the plaintiff in that case and this, claimed one half, the whole 165 acres (which included the ten acres now in dispute), after payment of liens and $200,000 to Alexander M. Watson as indorsements for his brothers.
The above offers were not accepted, but afterwards, on September 8, 1892, a deed was executed by Samuel Watson to the Fidelity Title & Trust Company, of all the land except the tenacre lot, by which he authorized said company to sell all the property then unsold, pay the incumbrances, expenses, etc., and convey the remainder, one undivided fifth, to Charles J. Watson, one undivided fifth to Mrs. Mary W. D. Watson and three undivided fifths to Samuel Watson.
On the same day the suit at No. 511, September term, 1892, was marked discontinued and settled.
This is all the written evidence offered in the case.
It will be observed, that giving full effect to the entire evidence, including exhibits "3 and 4," which were received under objection, and perhaps should have been excluded, it shows no interest in the plaintiff, but on the contrary is directly antagonistic to her claim. The ten acres now in dispute originally belonged to James Watson. It is true that the trust declared in favor of Charles J. Watson included an undivided fifth of the ten acres. This was probably because he had voluntarily subjected his interest for the benefit of the other cotenants of the remainder of the farm. But in the declaration in favor of Mrs. Watson, this part was expressly excluded, and in the offer of compromise it was proposed to give it to James.
The oral testimony does not add any strength to plaintif...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Truver v. Kennedy
...* * *.' This statute applies to constructive trusts: Silver v. Silver, 421 Pa. 533, 538, 539, 219 A.2d 659 (1966); Watson v. Watson, 198 Pa. 234, 247--249, 47 A. 1096 (1901). Mrs. Truver maintains that her cause of action Accrued when Mrs. Kennedy conveyed the premises, without consideratio......