Williams v. Williams

• Decision Date: 07 April 1899
• Citation: 108 Iowa 91,78 N.W. 792
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. WILLIAMS ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

108 Iowa 91

78 N.W. 792

WILLIAMS

v.WILLIAMS ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 7, 1899.

Appeal from district court, Clinton county; P. B. Wolfe, Judge.

Plaintiff, claiming to be the owner in fee simple under a warranty deed from her husband, H. L. Williams, of a certain 80-acre tract of land in Clinton county, Iowa, brings this action to quiet her title thereto as against the defendants, and to recover rent for the years 1893 and 1894. The defendants answered, denying that plaintiff is the owner of said land or entitled to rents as claimed. Further answering, they make allegations, as will hereafter appear, upon which they claim that the title to said land was held in trust by the said H. L. Williams, for himself and for his brothers and sisters, the defendants and their heirs, and that plaintiff knew that fact when she accepted said deed from her husband, and that no consideration was paid by the plaintiff for said conveyance. They ask judgment establishing the rights and interests of the parties in said land. Plaintiff replied, and, after hearing upon the issues joined, decree was rendered apportioning the land among all the parties, and from this decree the plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Barker & McCoy, for appellant.

Ellis & Ellis, for appellees.

GIVEN, J.

We find the following facts to be fairly established by the evidence: Prior to 1854, Mr. Williams, Sr., now deceased, owned a farm in Vermont, which was sold in contemplation of the family removing to the West. The family then consisted of the father, three sons, Edwin, Henry, and Darwin, and four daughters, Harriet, Parthenia, Emily, and Phœbe. Henry came West to look for a location for the family, and purchased six 80-acre tracts,--three in Cedar county and three in Clinton county, including the one in question,--and 32 acres of timber land. He took the title in his name and that of Edwin. This land was paid for with the proceeds derived from the sale of the Vermont farm, excepting one 80 in Cedar county, which, being school land, was purchased on long time, and paid for out of the proceeds derived from the cultivation of the farm. In the fall of 1854 the family came to Iowa, erected a house on one of the 80-acre tracts in Cedar county, and thereafter lived thereon, each member of the family aiding in improving all of said lands and using the same as one farm. They continued to live together as a family until 1857, when Emily married a Mr. Alden, and went to live elsewhere. Henry married the plaintiff in 1859, and in 1861 he left the farm, and went to live elsewhere. Phœbe married a Mr. Ordway in 1870, and went elsewhere to live. Harriet and Parthenia remained unmarried, and continued to reside on the farm, up to the time they died. Edwin and Darwin remained unmarried, and continued to live on the farm until 1893, when, being unable to work themselves, they rented it, and with their sister Mrs. Ordway rented a house elsewhere, in which they have since lived. Mr. Alden died intestate in 1889, leaving Emily, his widow, and Alton G., Hattie, Mary, Emma, and Edith, his children, surviving him, all of whom are of age and parties to this action. On February 9, 1861, about the time Henry left the farm, he and his wife, the plaintiff, conveyed the land, by warranty deed, for the recited consideration of one dollar, to Edwin. This deed was evidently made to place the land under the care of Edwin, who, with Darwin, Parthenia, and Harriet, remained on the farm. On the 10th day of April, 1867, Edwin, being in feeble health, conveyed the land to Parthenia, by a warranty deed, for the recited consideration of $600. On September 15, 1882, Parthenia, then in failing health, conveyed the land to Henry, by warranty deed, for the recited consideration of $1,800. On July 4, 1889, while in poor health, and but a few days prior to his death, Henry executed said warranty deed to his wife, the plaintiff, for the recited consideration of $100. It is entirely clear that no consideration whatever was paid for any of these conveyances, and that, excepting the one to the plaintiff, each was made for the purpose of allowing the grantee to hold the...