Wilson v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 28 October 1896
• Citation: 68 N.W. 910,99 Iowa 688
• Parties: WILSON v. WILSON ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

99 Iowa 688

68 N.W. 910

WILSON

v.WILSON ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 28, 1896.

Appeal from district court, Des Moines county; James D. Smyth, Judge.

Action in equity to enforce an alleged parol gift of a certain 80 acres of land, made by the defendant James Wilson, and to cancel a conveyance of said land made by him to the defendant Hausman. Defendants answered separately, denying the alleged gift, and averring that the land is the property of the defendant Hausman. Decree was entered dismissing plaintiff's petition, from which she appeals. Affirmed.P. Henry Smyth and A. M. Lewald, for appellant.

W. W. Dodge and A. H. Stutsman, for appellees.

GIVEN, J.

1. The sole contention is whether the evidence establishes the alleged gift. The following facts are undisputed: Some time prior to September 15, 1886, the defendant Wilson became the owner of the land in controversy by purchase for the consideration of $3,515, and took title to himself. On September 15, 1886, his son, an only child, Jacob Wilson, then in his nineteenth year, was married to the plaintiff, she then being 19 years of age. They were married at her father's home, and John Wilson and his wife, though opposed to the marriage, attended the wedding, and left soon after the ceremony. On the next day Jacob Wilson and the plaintiff went to the home of his parents to live, and remained there until March 1, 1887, when they went to live upon the farm in question. John Wilson provided his son with implements and other necessaries for working the farm, and Jacob and his wife remained thereon, and worked the same for four years, during which time Jacob made certain improvements, such as repairs on the house, sheds, fences, well, and putting in tile drains. On March 10, 1891, Jacob, by written lease, let the farm to one George Drinkall for one year for the rental of $260. On February 10, 1892, these persons executed a new lease for another year from March 1, 1892, at the same rent, and on August 22, 1892, they entered into the third lease for another year from March 1, 1893, the rental being $276.50. The defendant Wilson knew that Drinkall was occupying the land under these leases, and paying the rent to Jacob Wilson. March 1, 1891, Jacob, his wife, and two children that had been born to them, left the farm, and removed to the town of Morning Sun, where he engaged in the business of keeping a restaurant. In February, 1893, Jacob abandoned his wife and children, went out of the state, and has ever since lived apart from his wife. On March 9, 1893, defendant Wilson called upon the defendant Hausman, and offered to sell him this land. Hausman purchased the land for $4,040, and received a deed therefor from Wilson, executed March 25, 1893, in which the consideration is recited as $4,048.50. Prior to October 3, 1893, this plaintiff filed her petition for a divorce from her husband, Jacob Wilson, upon the ground of adultery. On October 3, 1893, default was entered against Jacob Wilson, and a decree entered dissolving the marriage relation, and giving custody of the two children to Mrs. Wilson. The land in question was decreed to her by description as alimony, free from all claims or control of Jacob Wilson. Plaintiff alleges in her petition as follows: “That about the time of their marriage the defendant John Wilson, father of said Jacob, purchased said farm for his said son, and presented the same to him for a homestead, and the gift was duly accepted; and in pursuance thereof the said Jacob and this plaintiff moved upon the said farm, and, with the knowledge and consent of said John Wilson, lived there, occupied it, made improvements upon it, paid taxes, and held it as the property of Jacob, it being known and understood that he was the owner thereof.” The evidence relied upon to support the alleged gift is, in substance, as follows: The plaintiff testifies that on the first evening after she and her husband came to the defendant Wilson's home to live, John Wilson, his wife, and the plaintiff and her husband were reading the list of wedding presents, and estimating their value, and that John Wilson said “his present would be larger than all the rest. I asked what it was, and he said it was the eighty-acre farm, and told me where it was. He said he would hold the deed until Jacob was twenty-one; he did not want him to sell the land. That was the substance of what was said then.” It was talked about frequently afterwards by John Wilson and others. She further states that on the day after John Wilson moved them he said “he would like to see us make as much money as he had. He started with nothing, but we started with eighty acres.” She further states that John Wilson was there often, and never said anything different. “He never indicated any purpose in putting us on the farm but to give it to us.” George Hutchcroft testifies that, soon after John Wilson bought this farm, “I said to him, ‘I heard you bought the farm.’ He said, ‘Yes, I bought it for Jake.’ ” He also testifies that at another time Wilson said “he was not going to give the deed for a while, and I said, ‘If I were you, I would not give him a deed yet.’ ” He states that the first talk was...