Wilson v. Wilson
| Citation | 204 S.W.2d 479,211 Ark. 1030 |
| Decision Date | 29 September 1947 |
| Docket Number | 4-8190 |
| Parties | Wilson v. Wilson |
| Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
Appeal from Bradley Chancery Court; James Merritt, Chancellor.
Affirmed.
John A. Hibbler and John L. Sullivan, for appellant.
DuVal L. Purkins, for appellee.
W. T. Wilson was a colored farmer and schoolteacher residing near Portland in Ashley county in 1916 when he married appellee, Annie Wilson, one of his former pupils. Wilson was 14 years older than appellee. They resided in Ashley county for about seven years where he continued to teach school three months of each year and conducted farming operations on rented lands. Appellee kept house, assisted in the farm work, and, at odd times, engaged in hairdressing for the colored women of the community. The husband transacted all their business affairs.
The couple moved to Warren in Bradley county, Arkansas, in 1923. In October, 1923, Wilson purchased two lots for $ 200 in block 5, Butler's Addition to the City of Warren, located near the mill of the Bradley Lumber Co. In 1924, a home was built on one of these lots where the parties resided until his death in 1944. In October, 1924, five lots were purchased in blocks 5 and 6, Butler's Addition, for $ 375. In November, 1926, five other lots were purchased in block 5 Butler's Addition. Construction of small three-room rent houses was begun in 1924 and by 1928 fifteen of these houses had been built on the lots in blocks 5 and 6 of Butler's Addition. In March, 1940, a purchase was made from Mattie Gould of lots 16 and 17, Bell's Subdivision of the E. N. Wilson Addition, and lot 10, block 4 Butler's Addition, to the City of Warren, upon which seven rent houses were located. In March, 1941, lots 7 and 8, block 6, Butler's Addition to the City of Warren were purchased from Leanna Winters for $ 300. There were two rent houses on these lots which were paid for from rentals. W. T. Wilson was made grantee in the deeds evidencing all these purchases.
W. T. Wilson continued to teach in the colored schools at Warren from 1924 until his retirement in 1937. His salary was $ 75 a month for eight months during most of this period. He also looked after the rental of the tenant houses. After his retirement from the teaching profession, he drew a small monthly retirement pay until his death in 1944. Appellee kept house and for several years engaged in hairdressing. She also kept a few boarders who were employed by the lumber company. She assisted her husband in the collection of rentals and the earnings of both were placed in a common fund administered by the husband.
W. T. Wilson inherited 40.17 acres of land in Ashley county from his father's estate following the death of his mother in 1936. In October, 1943, he executed a lease of this land to William Bozeman for the years 1944, 1945 and 1946. This lease provided for annual rentals of $ 200, payable to Wilson, and further stipulated that in the event of Wilson's death during the term of the lease such rentals should be paid to appellee.
W. T. Wilson died September 1, 1944, childless and intestate. He was survived by appellee, his widow, and the appellants who are the brothers and sisters and other collateral heirs of deceased. Appellants are all of age. The deceased owed no debts at the time of his death and owned little personal property. Appellee received $ 150 from one life insurance policy and another for $ 55 was payable to the estate of the deceased.
Efforts of the parties to effect an amicable settlement of their respective interests in the estate failed, and appellee brought this suit in chancery court alleging that she was entitled to the rentals due under the three-year lease of the 40 acres in Ashley county owned by her husband at the time of his death; that her husband was made sole grantee in all the deeds to the Warren properties without her knowledge until after his death; that one-half of the purchase price of these properties was furnished by appellee and purchase made with the intent and understanding between appellee and her husband that the property would belong to them jointly; and that a resulting trust should be declared in appellee's favor to the extent of her payment of one-half the purchase price in all the Warren property. Appellee prayed that she be adjudged the owner of the $ 600 rentals due on the lease of the Ashley county 40-acre tract and that her life estate be quieted in said lands. She also prayed that her title to a threefourths undivided interest in fee in the Bradley county property be quieted and confirmed.
In their answer, appellants admitted that all the deeds to the Warren property were made to W. T. Wilson as grantee, and denied the other material allegations of the complaint. Appellants prayed for an accounting of rents, the appointment of a receiver, and for distribution of the respective interests of the parties according to the law of descent and distribution.
The cause was submitted to the chancellor upon the pleadings, stipulations and the depositions of numerous witnesses whose testimony comprises four of the six volumes of the transcript. A decree was entered on July 8, 1946, adjudging appellee to be the owner of the $ 600 rentals accruing under the lease of the Ashley county lands and quieting her life estate therein. In addition to the undivided one-half interest with which appellee became endowed as a widow in the three lots purchased from Mattie Gould, the court decreed a resulting trust in her favor to an undivided one-half of the one-half interest owned by her husband at the time of his death in this property. The court denied appellee's prayer that a resulting trust be declared in her favor in the other Warren properties. Appellants were charged with 70 per cent. of the costs and appellee with 30 per cent. There were several other matters determined by the decree which are not involved in this appeal.
Appellants have appealed from so much of the decree as holds appellee entitled to the $ 600 rental and establishes a resulting trust in the property acquired from Mattie Gould. They have also appealed from that part of the decree which makes them liable for 70 per cent. of the court costs.
Appellee has cross appealed from that part of the decree which denies a resulting trust in her favor in the remainder of the Warren properties.
Appellee has filed with her brief a motion to dismiss the appeal for appellants' failure to properly abstract the record in compliance with Rule IX (b) of this court. There are several obvious defects in the abstract furnished by appellants. It is unnecessary to point them out since appellee has cured this deficiency and waived her motion to dismiss by supplying us with a correct abstract of the record. Springfield v. Steen, 99 Ark. 241, 138 S.W. 453; Sears v. Scott, 210 Ark. 392, 197 S.W.2d 33.
In Springfield v. Steen, supra, the court said: "Where the appellee has made a proper abstract, which is accepted by appellant as correct, or to which no objection is made, and then asks us to affirm the judgment for noncompliance with Rule 9 by appellant, we have denied his motion, and have taxed appellant with the additional costs because appellee has performed the duty to the court which is required of appellant." So here appellants will be charged with the additional costs incurred by appellee in abstracting the record, and appellee's motion to dismiss is denied.
Appellants contend that the chancellor erred in finding appellee entitled to the $ 600 in rentals under the lease of the 40-acre farm in Ashley county, the ancestral estate of W. T. Wilson, deceased. This lease was executed by W. T. Wilson in October, 1943, and contains the following provision: "It is expressly understood and agreed by and between lessor and lessee that in the event of the death of lessor during the term of this contract, such rentals as may be due from lessee under the terms of this contract shall be paid to Annie Wilson, wife of lessor." Appellants insist that appellee is merely made the agent of her husband's estate for collection of the rental moneys in the event of his death before maturity of the lease. If such had been the intention of the parties, it would have been a simple matter to have added this restriction on the rights of appellee in the wording of the lease.
We think the trial court correctly construed the terms of this paragraph of the lease and that appellee became the owner of the rentals accruing after the death of her husband. The situation is analogous to that where a deed conveys property but reserves its use and possession for the lifetime of the grantor. In Hatcher v. Buford, 60 Ark. 169, 29 S.W. 641, 27 L. R. A. 507, this court said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whorton v. Gaspard
...this is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Lyle v. Latourette, 209 Ark. 721, 192 S.W.2d 521; Wilson v. Wilson, 211 Ark. 1030, 204 S.W.2d 479; Thomas and Ozan Lumber Company v. Smith, 215 Ark. 527, 221 S.W.2d 408. We are unwilling to say the trial court abused its discr......
- Parnell v. Parnell
-
Darsow v. Landreth
...real purchaser [Wall] and not that of the grantee [Eikner] in the deed forms the consideration. Stacy v. Stacy, supra; Wilson v. Wilson, 211 Ark. 1030, 204 S.W.2d 479. A resulting trust must be established by evidence that is clear, convincing and satisfactory. Wilson v. Wilson, supra; Keit......