Woodford v. Stephens

• Decision Date: 31 January 1873
• Citation: 51 Mo. 443
• Parties: JULIUS WOODFORD, et al., Respondents, v. ELIZABETH STEPHENS, et al., Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

51 Mo. 443

JULIUS WOODFORD, et al., Respondents,

v.ELIZABETH STEPHENS, et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1873.

Appeal from Johnson Circuit Court.

Johnson & Botsford, for Appellants.

The wife's choses or personals in possession, whether owned at the time of the marriage or acquired subsequently, pass immediately and absolutely to the husband. (Schoul. Dom. Rel., 112; Matter of Grant, 2 Story C. C. 312; Hyde vs. Stone, 9 Cow., 230; Glann vs. Younglove, 27 Barb., 480; Winslow vs. Crocker, 17 Maine, 29; Morgan vs. Thames Bank, 14 Conn., 99; Legg vs. Legg, 8 Mass., 99; Hawkins vs. Craig, 6 Monr., 257; Shirley vs. Shirley, 9 Paige, 363; Hopkins vs. Carey, 23 Miss., 54; Hopper vs. McWhorter, 18 Ala., 229; Hoskins vs. Miller, 2 Dev., 360; Skillman vs. Skillman, 2 Beasley, 403; Cropsey vs. McKenney, 30 Barb., 47; Gentry vs. McReynolds, 12 Mo., 533; Abbington vs. Travis, 15 Mo., 240; Boyce vs. Cayce, 17 Mo., 47; Polk's Admr. vs. Allen, 19 Mo., 467; Walker's Admr. vs. Walker, 25 Mo., 367; Clark vs. The National Bank, &c., 47 Mo., 17; Pawley vs. Vogel, 42 Mo., 291.)

If it is attempted to prove that the husband did not intend to acquire personal property, owned by the wife at the time of marriage or acquired by her descent, gift or otherwise during coverture, by the admissions and declarations of the husband, such admissions and declarations must be shown to have been deliberate, positive, precise, clear and consistent. (Walker's Admr. vs. Walker, 25 Mo., 367; In Re Gray's Estate, 1 Penn. St., 327; Gochenaur's Estate, 23 Penn. St., 460; Johnston vs. Johnston's Admr., 31 Penn. St., 450; Coates vs. Gerlach, 44 Penn. St., 43; Borst vs. Spelman, 4 Comst., 284; Jennings vs. Davis, 31 Conn., 134; Denning vs. Williams, 26 Conn., 226; George vs. Spencer, 2 Md. Ch., 353; Reynolds vs. Lansford, 16 Texas, 286; Gannard vs Eslava, 20 Ala., 733; Walter vs. Hodge, 2 Swanston, 97; Schoul. Dom. Rel., 285; Cord. on Married Women, § 593; Clancey on Rights, 259, 260; 2 Sto. Eq. J., § 1375.)

While the case of Tennison, vs. Tennison, (46 Mo., 77,) was decided correctly upon the facts, some portions of the opinion delivered by Judge Currier certainly contain erroneous statements of the law. The closing paragraphs of that opinion assume, that, in order for the husband to acquire the ownership of choses in possession of his wife, he must reduce them to his own possession with the express intent so to acquire them. This is not the law, as applicable to choses in possession, though it may be as to choses in action. (Schoul. Dom. Rel., 112 to 117).

When the rights of creditors are not in the way, courts of equity on less proof will compel the execution of the trust for the benefit of the wife. (Walker vs. Walker, 25 Mo., 367; 2 Sto. Eq., §§ 1372, 1373, 1380.)

ADAMS, Judge delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was an action in the nature of a bill in equity to divest out of defendants the title to the north half of the north-east quarter of section 19, township 45 of range 45, in Johnson county, and invest the same in Martha J. Woodford, wife of plaintiff, Julius Woodford.

The petition in substance alleges that the plaintiff, Martha J. Woodford, first married Humphrey J. Marshall, and that after she was married, she received a large amount of personal property from her father, among which was a fine horse, and all of which was held by her for her separate use, and that her late husband sold part of this property with the express agreement that the proceeds of sale were to be invested in lands for her separate use; that he took this money and entered the tract of land in dispute, and made the entry in his own name instead of hers, but that the land was entered for her and with her money, and was always held by him for her.

The defendants by their answer deny all the material allegations of the petition, and allege that the money belonged to Humphrey J. Marshall, her late husband in his own right, with which the land was entered. The defendants also set up as a bar to this suit a former judgment in partition between these same parties, in which part of the lands belonging to her former husband was allotted to the plaintiff as her dower, and the remainder, including the piece in controversy, was sold, and John Price, one of the defendants in this suit, became the purchaser.

The case was submitted to the court for trial, and the court found for the plaintiffs and gave judgment, vesting the title to this tract of land in plaintiff, Martha J. Woodford, from which judgment the defendants have appealed to this court.

The evidence upon which this decree is based is preserved in the bill of exceptions, and the facts as developed are as follows:

In the year 1848, the plaintiff, Martha J. Woodford, whose maiden name was Martha J. Shivers, intermarried with Humphrey J. Marshall, in Johnson county, Mo. That at, or just before the marriage, her father had given her a horse and soon afterwards a cow and a heifer, and four or five sheep, and two beds and plenty of bedclothes. Some months after the marriage her husband, Marshall, went to her father's house and brought home the horse, cow, heifer and sheep. That in 1850 or 1851, Marshall sold the horse with another horse to John S. Jones for $130 for both; that the other horse so sold brought in the sale $75. The land in dispute was entered by Marshall in his own name in December, 1853. The witnesses on the part of plaintiffs testified in substance that they heard Marshall speak of this land in 1860 or 1861, and that he called it Martha's land, that he had entered it with money he got for the sale of Martha's horse that had been given to her by her father; that when persons wished to buy this piece of land he would say, it is Martha's land, go to her if you want it. Martha testified that she claimed the land as hers; that she claimed it as hers in the presence of her husband, Marshall. The evidence also showed that as long as Marshall had the horse he received from his wife's father he called it Martha's horse.

On the part of the defense it was in evidence by the testimony of John Price and his wife and sister-in-law, all of whom are parties to this suit, that the evening before the land was entered by Marshall, he came to Price's house in a great hurry to borrow the money to make the entry, saying that there was another man wanted the land, and it would ruin him if he did not get it. He wanted land office money, and Price let him have $100 in gold and silver to enter the land with; that on his return from the land office he said he had ridden all night and made the entry, and as he returned home met the man...