White v. Ingram

• Decision Date: 06 June 1892
• Citation: 19 S.W. 827,110 Mo. 474
• Parties: WHITE et ux. v. INGRAM et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

19 S.W. 827

110 Mo. 474

WHITE et ux. v. INGRAM et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

June 6, 1892.

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE — PAROL CONTRACT — STATUTE OF FRAUDS — BONA FIDE PURCHASER.

1. Defendant sold land to plaintiff, taking the latter's note upon a parol understanding that when the plaintiff should marry defendant's daughter, as it was expected he would do, the defendant would deliver up the note, and execute a deed to the daughter. The daughter and plaintiff afterwards married, and moved upon the land, where they remained for five years, making valuable improvements. Defendant delivered up the note, and had a deed prepared reciting a consideration of love and affection and also of $100. This deed, however, was never executed, because of difficulties between defendant and his wife resulting in a divorce. On several occasions defendant admitted giving the land to the daughter. Held as showing a performance sufficient to take the case out of the statute of frauds.

2. A statement of the defendant that plaintiff would have to pay him the value of a horse before he would execute the deed, made after the equitable title to the land had attached in favor of the daughter, did not affect the rights of the daughter, as her attitude then was that of a bona fide purchaser.

3. A declaration of the husband, that he would be willing to pay something for the land to avoid trouble, was not, when made in the wife's absence and after an equitable title to the land had attached in her favor, sufficient to prejudice the wife, even conceding that it could have had that effect under any circumstances

Error to circuit court, Cape Girardeau county; H. C. O'BRYAN, Judge.

Suit by Sidney White and wife against Margaret Ingram and others for specific performance of a contract for the conveyance of land. There was judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs thereupon took this writ. Reversed.

The other facts fully appear in the following statement by SHERWOOD, C. J.:

The plaintiffs, husband and wife, seek specific performance of a parol contract entered into between the plaintiffs and one William Ingram, now deceased, the father of several of the defendants. Margaret Ingram is the former wife of William, from whom she obtained a divorce shortly before his death, in 1887. The parties litigant are negroes. The defendants are not represented in this court. The theory of the petition is a promise by William Ingram made to Sidney White that if he would marry his daughter Amelia, who had won his dusky affections, and to whom he was then engaged, that he, the father, would convey to her the tract of 60 acres of land in question; that White had previously, or else concurrently with said promise, bought the land of William Ingram for the price of $600, for which sum he had executed his promissory note to Ingram; and the latter, upon the delivery of the note, promised that when White should lead his daughter to the hymeneal altar, in consummation of the mutual understanding and contract, Ingram would surrender to White the note he had given him, and would execute a deed conveying the land in controversy to his daughter; that the plaintiffs thereafter were married; that Ingram delivered the note to him; that plaintiffs moved upon the land, cleared and improved about half of it, and put it in cultivation, erected stables and outhouses, dug a cistern, planted out an orchard, and paid all taxes on the land; that, owing to domestic troubles between Ingram and his wife, the promised deed was never made, though in January, 1887, some four year after the contract was made and the marriage occurred, and possession taken of the land and improvements made, Ingram caused a deed to be prepared, to carry out his promise, but, owing to the domestic troubles aforesaid, no deed was ever made, and shortly thereafter Ingram died intestate. The answer of the defendants was a general denial, and then pleaded that the supposed agreement was a special promise in consideration of marriage and for the sale of the lands, and was not in writing, in compliance with the statute in such cases made and provided. Margaret Ingram, for her separate defense, pleaded that she was the widow of William, and as such entitled to dower. The reply was a general denial.

The hearing of this cause took place in 1889. The evidence disclosed, in substance, this state of facts: At the time of the transactions aforesaid, between Sidney White and William Ingram, the former was in possession of 40 acres of the tract which he had bought of Charles Wilson and paid for, and was living on at the time of the occurrence of the matters alleged in the petition. He was also trustee in a deed of trust given to secure William Ingram in the purchase money of 60 acres, a part of the same tract bought by Harrison McLane. McLane failed to pay for the land, and Ingram ordered White to sell it, which he did as trustee, and Ingram bought the land at the sale. This was January 13, 1883. Then the note for $600 was executed by Sidney White to Ingram, and thereupon White took possession of the 60-acre tract of land, made improvements, and paid taxes, as already stated, and has been in the exclusive possession of that portion of the tract ever since. In 1884 he married the daughter of Ingram. There is testimony that Ingram, who died, it seems, in 1887, repeatedly said, in substance, "The place White lives on I gave to my daughter." Such conversations are testified to by Mattinly. Weinhold, one of the defendants, and the administrator of Ingram's estate, testified that Joseph Ingram, a son of William, and one of the defendants, had told him to the effect that his father had intended the 60-acre tract for his sister, White's wife, and had the deed drawn up for that purpose, but it was never signed. Cora Ingram, another of the defendants, testified that she heard her father tell her sister, Amelia White, when she went down to her father's house, about a month or two before he died, that he had given the 60 acres to her.

Bonney testified that in 1887 he was a justice of the peace, and William Ingram told him to prepare a deed for the land in litigation, and take it to his wife first, and if she would sign it he would, and if she would not that it would do no good for him to sign it; that he accordingly prepared the deed, and took it to Ingram's wife to sign, but she refused to do so. The deed thus referred to by Bonney, and which was prepared under the directions of Ingram, is dated the ____ day of January, 1887, in which William Ingram and wife are named as grantors, and Mary A. White, one of the plaintiffs, and her bodily heirs, are named as grantees, the consideration love and affection and $100 in hand paid, receipt of which sum is acknowledged. This occurred before the divorce between Ingram and wife. When Bonney prepared this deed he had in his possession a deed which had been handed him by White in December, 1886. This deed is dated on the ____ day of ____, 1883, in which William Ingram and wife are named as grantors, and Sidney White is named as grantee, consideration $600. This unsigned deed was prepared by one Pepper. Upon Bonney's informing Ingram that the latter's wife would not sign the deed of 1887, Ingram told him that, as soon as a divorce was had between the parties, "I will get you to prepare another deed for my daughter and her heirs." In the same conversation...