White v. Ingram
| Decision Date | 06 June 1892 |
| Citation | 19 S.W. 827,110 Mo. 474 |
| Parties | White et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Ingram et al |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Cape Girardeau Circuit Court. -- Hon. H. C. O'Bryan Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
John A Hope and R. B. Oliver for plaintiffs in error.
(1) The contract and promise made by William Ingram to Sidney White for the sale of this land was not a voluntary one. It was supported by a valuable consideration of a $ 600 note, to be surrendered upon the marriage of plaintiffs. Upon their marriage, the note was surrendered to plaintiff Sidney, and the deed to plaintiff, Mary A., was promised. Possession was taken by the plaintiff, in pursuance of this promise, and valuable improvements put upon the land, deeds made, officers sent to take acknowledgment of wife, and but for want of knowledge would have been executed. Where this is so "equity looks upon that as done which ought to be done," and will enforce by decree the contract made. Dougherty v. Horsel, 91 Mo. 161; West v. Bundy, 78 Mo. 407; Anderson v. Shockley, 82 Mo. 250. (2) But, if it is treated as a voluntary executory promise from parent to child, we take it as well-settled law of this state: That an agreement for the gift of land will not be enforced against the donor upon proof alone of the promise to give. But where the donee has accepted the promise, entered into the possession of the land, made improvements upon the faith of the promise, the donor will be required to make good the gift. Anderson v. Scott, 94 Mo. 637; Dougherty v. Horsel, 91 Mo. 161; Sitton v. Shipp, 65 Mo. 297; Hagar v. Hagar, 71 Mo. 610. (3) The court erred in sustaining defendants' objection to the question put to witness Weinhold. The declaration of the defendant against his interest is competent, and the court's refusal to hear it is reversible error. Glenn v. Lehner, 54 Mo. 45. (4) This being a proceeding in equity, this court will review the evidence. Benne v. Schnecko, 100 Mo. 250; Allen v. Logan, 96 Mo. 591.
Wilson Cramer, T. D. Hines and J. D. Limbaugh for defendants in error.
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 her dusky affections, and to whom he was then engaged, that he, the father, would convey to her the tract of sixty 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 this 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 years 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 forty 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 sixty 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 sixty-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 Mattingly.
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 sixty-acre tract for his sister, White's wife, and had the deed drawn up for the 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 sixty acres to her.
Bonney testified that in 1887 he was a justice of the peace, and Wm. 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, Ingram told Bonney that when Pepper prepared the deed of 1883, that Sidney White had executed a note to him, and that he had given it up to him. When the delivery of this note to White occurred does not appear. This note was in White's possession at the time the cause was heard.
Bonney also testified that in the same conversation Ingram told him to prepare another deed, "some of these days, shortly." At another time after a divorce had been granted to Ingram's wife, he told Bonney to prepare another deed, and he would sign it on his return from town; but when he returned he was not in a condition to do anything, and died soon thereafter.
In the conversation which took place between Ingram and Bonney after the divorce, when giving directions how the deed to Ingram's daughter was to be drawn, the latter said he wanted to make a little difference, that he would make the deed the same as the one of January, 1887, which Bonney had already prepared; but Sidney White must pay him the worth of a horse -- did not say what amount.
The note in question was shown to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial