Williams v. Wells

• Decision Date: 19 September 1883
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. WELLS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

62 Iowa 740

16 N.W. 513

WILLIAMS

v.WELLS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed September 19, 1883.

Appeal from Lee district court.

Action in chancery to partition certain real estate, being parts of two lots in the city of Keokuk. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the undivided one-third of the property, and alleges in his petition that the defendant owns the undivided two-thirds. The defendant denies the interest and claims set up by plaintiff, and alleges that he holds the title to the whole property. Upon a trial on the merits, the district court entered a decree confirming the title in plaintiff to the undivided one-third of the property, and appointing commissioners to make partition thereof and report their proceedings as required by statute. Defendant appeals.Anderson Bros. & Davis, for appellant.

Hagerman, McCrary & Hagerman, for appellee.

BECK, J.

1. The petition alleges that plaintiff is the only child and heir of Catharine and B. A. Williams; that his mother died in 1876, and his father in 1872; that the father owned the property in controversy, and in 1872 conveyed it to defendant; that the mother did not join in the deed or make any relinquishment of her dower interest in the real estate; and that, upon the death of the father, plaintiff's mother became seized of the undivided one-third of the property, which, upon her death, descended to plaintiff.

The answer alleges that the property was conveyed to defendant in exchange for other property in the city of Keokuk, of equal value, deeded by defendant to B. A. Williams in his life-time. The defendant makes further allegations in his answer in the following language: “That defendant did not know of the existence of Catharine Williams, but in good faith supposed said B. A. Williams to be unmarried, having been shortly before divorced from Margaret E. Williams, whom defendant in good faith supposed to have been the wife of said B. A. Williams; that plaintiff knew of the existence of said Catharine Williams, and of her rights (if any) in and to the property in controversy, yet so knowing concealed the existence of said Catharine Williams from the defendant, and by his conduct induced and allowed the defendant to make the exchange as aforesaid, and defendant, relying upon the supposed fact that said B. A. Williams was unmarried, made the exchange of property aforesaid, and parted with his property upon the faith of such supposed fact.” It is further alleged that after the death of B. A. Williams, plaintiff, as heir, took possession of the property deeded by defendant to his father, and afterwards sold and conveyed it by deed of warranty. The plaintiff in reply admits the trade and conveyances between defendant and his father. He alleges that he had no connection with the trade except as the agent of his father, and had no knowledge of the existence of his mother at the time, and acted in good faith, and denies that defendant was induced by his conduct or representations to make the conveyance to his father, or relied upon them. Other allegations of the pleadings need not be here recited. The case was submitted and tried upon an agreed statement of facts set out in a stipulation, which is in the following language:

“For the purpose of abridging the testimony herein, it is agreed:

(1) That B. A. Williams and Catharine Williams were legally married in the state of New York, on or about September 16, 1831; that they lived and cohabited together as husband and wife until on or about the _______ day of ______, 1840, during which time Horace Williams, the plaintiff in this action, was born of said parents, and that the plaintiff is the only surviving child of said Catharine Williams.

(2) That B. A. Williams, father of the plaintiff, died in Keokuk, Iowa, on or about the thirty-first day of December, 1872, and that Catharine Williams, mother of the plaintiff, died intestate in an insane asylum in Onondaga county, New York, on or about the twenty-fifth day of December, 1876.

Catharine Williams never deeded, released, or devised any interest she may have had in the property in question in this case, either before or after her husband's death. It is not admitted that she had any interest, except in so far as the facts may tend to establish an interest, if any.

(3) That Catharine Williams, about the ______ day of ______, 1840, became insame and was placed in an insane asylum in Onondaga county, New York, where she remained an insane woman continually until the day of her death on December 25, 1876.

(4) That B. A. Williams removed to the west about 1842, with a woman with whom he lived and cohabited, claiming to be husband and wife, until shortly before the thirty-first day of November, 1846, when she procured a decree of divorce from him in the district court of Lee county, Iowa, at Fort Madison, a copy of which decree is hereunto attached, marked Exhibit A, and made part hereof.

(5) That afterwards, to-wit, on or about the sixth day of May, 1849, the said B. A. Williams and Margaret E. Steele had a ceremony of marriage performed at Keokuk, Iowa, and from that time until about 1872 they, the said B. A. Williams and the said Margaret E. Williams, (formerly Steele,) lived and cohabited together, claiming to be husband and wife, and were so recognized by the community in Keokuk, Iowa; that several children were born to them; that for about ten years after their marriage plaintiff lived with his father, the said B. A. Williams, and the said Margaret E. Williams, as one of the family; that said B. A. Williams, while said Margaret E. Williams lived with him, treated and held her out to the world as his wife; that she joined in several deeds with B. A. Williams as his wife, releasing dower thereon to their grantees; that two or three deeds for real estate were thus made to the plaintiff from B. A. Williams and Margaret E. Williams, aforesaid, and that while plaintiff lived with his father he recognized and treated the said Margaret E. Williams as the wife of his father.

(6) That on or about the first day of October, 1872, the said Margaret E. Williams obtained a decree of divorce from the bonds of matrimony against the said B. A. Williams, and about $10,000 alimony from the said B. A. Williams, in the district court of Lee county, Iowa, at Keokuk; a copy of which decree is hereto attached, marked ‘Exhibit B,’ and made part hereof.

(7) That prior to November 13, 1872, B. A. Williams was the owner in fee-simple of the property in controversy.

(8) That on the thirteenth day of November, 1872, the said B. A. Williams exchanged the said property in controversy with Guy Wells for the north-east one-half of lot 6, block 5, in the city of Keokuk, and in pursuance of such contract for the exchange of said pieces of property, the said B. A. Williams made, executed, and delivered a warranty deed conveying the property in controversy to Guy Wells, naming the consideration therein, $5,000, and Guy Wells made, executed, and delivered a warranty deed conveying the north one-half of lot 6 in block 5 in the city of Keokuk aforesaid to the said B. A. Williams, also naming the consideration of $5,000.

(9) On the twenty-fourth day of March, 1877, Horace Williams made, executed, and delivered to Sarah E. Williams, his wife, a warranty deed conveying to her the north-east one-half of lot 6 in block 5 aforesaid, and on the twenty-third day of January the said Sarah E. Williams and Horace Williams, her husband, made, executed, and delivered a quitclaim deed conveying the said north-east one-half of lot 6, block 5, aforesaid, to John H. Craig, William Collier, M. A. Ballinger, and Sarah J. Gelatt.

The foregoing admissions and agreement was made subject to the objections by either party on account of immateriality or irrelevancy.

(10) The defendant, Wells, at the time of making of the trade of said pieces of real estate, did not know anything about the marriage of Catharine Williams, mother of the plaintiff, with the said B. A. Williams; nor did he know anything of the existence and continued life of said Catharine Williams, but at the time of said trade in good faith supposed that B. A. Williams had no wife, and also in good faith supposed that he was getting the entire title of said real estate described in the petition; that the plaintiff took part in the negotiations of said trade as agent of B. A. Williams, and as such agent signed a contract with said defendant in the name of B. A. Williams, by himself as agent, which he was authorized to do; a copy of which contract is attached hereto as part hereof--Exhibit C; and it is admitted that the defect of title or cloud mentioned in said agreement referred to the absence of any evidence of record of a deed from William Armstrong to Joel Hargrove, shown in the abstract attached to petition in this case.”

The Exhibit C referred to in the tenth paragraph of the statement of facts is a contract executed December 31, 1872, by B. A. Williams, by his agent, Horace Williams, plaintiff, and the defendant, which provides that Williams shall, at his own expense, prosecute a suit to quiet the title of the property involved in this action. Certain stipulations concerning rent,...