Watson v. Watson

• Decision Date: 21 February 1907
• Citation: 80 N.E. 332,225 Ill. 412
• Parties: WATSON v. WATSON et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

225 Ill. 412

80 N.E. 332

WATSON

v.WATSON et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 21, 1907.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clay County; Truman E. Ames, Judge.

Bill by H. E. Watson against H. S. Watson and others to establish a trust concerning certain lands. From a decree in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Frank F. Noleman and James H. Smith, for appellant.

B. D. Monroe and H. D. McCollum (Earl D. Monroe, of counsel), for appellee.

FARMER, J.

This was a proceeding instituted by appellant, by bill in chancery, to establish a trust in appellee H. S. Watson, for the benefit of appellant, in 70 acres of land, and to enjoin said appellee from disposing of said lands by deed or other conveyance during his lifetime, to take effect at his death. Appellee H. S. Watson is the father of appellant, H. E. Watson. The bill charges that appellee H. S. Watson was seized in fee of the land in question, and on July 2, 1900, entered into a parol agreement with appellant that if appellant would remain upon the premises, where he was then living with appellee, and occupy the same and make necessary improvements thereon and furnish appellee a home with him for the rest of said appellee's natural life, the latter would then and there deliver possession of said premises to appellant, who should have and hold such possession during the remainder of said appellee's natural life, and that appellee would convey said premises to appellant by will or other proper conveyance, to take effect at the death of said appellee, upon the happening of which appellant should become the sole and exclusive owner of said premises. The bill further alleges that, in consideration of said premises and agreement, appellant, with his family, continued to reside upon the premises and occupy the dwelling house and other buildings thereon, and by reason thereof was induced to and did abandon plans and intentions to establish a home for himself elsewhere; that appellant has expended large sums of money in improving and caring for the premises and paying taxes thereon; that he cared for and furnished appellee with a home until the month of November, 1904, when appellee got married and built and moved into another house; that appellant has been at all times ready and willing to keep and perform the agreement between him and appellee, and is willing to provide him and his wife with a suitable home and care, but that appellee refuses to live with appellant and make his home with him, and is endeavoring to sell the lands and defeat appellant's title and interest therein. The answer of appellee H. S. Watson admitted that he owned the land, and had offered to sell the same, but positively and directly denied making any such agreement as is set out in the bill and denied every other material allegation in said bill contained. The answer also set up and relied on the statute of frauds. The answer of Ruth V. Watson, wife of H. S. Watson, admitted her marriage to the said defendant H. S. Watson on June 8, 1904; denied complainant supported and cared for them while they lived in the house with him, and as to all other matters in the bill adopted the answer of her husband, H. S. Watson. The cause was heard on oral proof before the chancellor, and a decree entered dismissing the bill, from which decree, this appeal is prosecuted.

It appears from the evidence that appellant having failed in business in the city of Louisville, Clay county, at the invitation of his father in 1891 went to live with his parents on the farm in question, which is near the village of Iola, in said county. Appellant's wife had died some years previous to this time, and his parents had given his children-one of whom was an infant and the other about two years old when their mother died-a home with them from and after her death. Appellant was a widower when he went to live with his parents, in 1891, and so continued to July, 1900. Appellant's mother died in April, 1900. During all the time appellant was living with his father previous to 1900 there was no arrangement between him and his father about any compensation or division of profits from their farming operations, and it is not claimed by appellant that during these nine years he remained on the farm by reason of any promises of his father to convey him the land. We do not understand from the evidence appellant gave all his time to his father's business. He says he was engaged in trading and other enterprises on his own account. The bank account was kept in his father's name, but was checked on by both father and son. In July, 1900, appellee H. S. Watson was making preparations to visit a daughter in Ohio. The only women in the house were two girls who had lived there and kept house for the two men. One of them, named Carrie, had lived with H. S. Watson's family a good many years. Appellant was engaged to be married to her, but had not informed his father of it until the night of July 2, 1900. He testified that on that night he told his father of his intended marriage, and that it was to occur two days later, July 4th. His exact language is: ‘I called my father out, and, says I, ‘Pa, I am going to get married on the 4th of July,’ and, says he, ‘Who to?’ and says I, ‘To Carrie.’ He put his hand on my shoulder, and, ‘Son,’ says he, ‘that is the very thing for you to do.’ Says he, ‘I will live here with you forever, and this property is yours.’' This is the contract as disclosed by the testimony of appellant. After complainant's marriage he and his wife continued to live in the house of app...