*1 uttеrly important strange stipulation was silent on that that n point. 120 acres remaining to his children defendant’s sale As pleaded prove his contention he made such that evidence allegations plaintiff’s di- sale in reliаnce because in that We set petition the settlement made have vorce case. regarding sale. He out all that defendant said above testified nothing sale, why about he made the consideration rе- said pleading says it consideration. ceived. His valuable There was was a testimony sale, relative evidence defendant’s for making it, aught reason or the consideration received. For appeаrs in the record sale been might have for full value and regardless have been made of the incidents of the divorce suit. judgment of affirmed. circuit court is Westhues and Boh- Ung, CG., concur. PER foregoing C., opinion CURIAM: The adoptеd Cooley, opinion as the judges court. All the concur.
Charles E. Ahmann and John Kemper, Appellants. S. 256. Two, August 17,
Division *2 Joseph Tate, T. Clark, Boggs, Peterson Becker and B. Howard Lang, Jr., appellants. respondent. B. Hensley
Claude Ball and David B. *3 BOHLING, C. The principal contested is: issue Has the wife in an estate by the entirety which she assert subsequent to the death of her against in unsecured debtedness of herself and husband subsequent incurred filing for record of the deed convеying said estate. Briefly of the facts.
Edwin J. Summers and Mary E. Summers were husband and wife. The record title to an eighty acre tract of land stood in the name of Mary E. and the record title to an abutting eighty stood in the names of Edwin J. and Mary E. as husband and subject to a secured indebtedness of $2,200. Thereafter, on February Edwin J. and Mary E. $2,200 borrowed from Charles "W.Ahmann, executing their unsecured note therefor, discharged the aforesaid secured indebtedness therеwith. J., Mary E., and their minor son occupied eighties the two as the home place; and after death of Edwin J. on April 21, 1923, Mary E. and the minor son continued occupy January so said farm. On 1935, Mary deeded farm, recited considеration whole said ~W. John 1935, John January 24, considerations; being $1.00 married. were E. Summers Mary Kemper and aat said farm deed having Ahmann, Charles W. awith connection execution special sale sheriff’s Kemper on afоre- Mary July 2,1935, obtained E. Sum- Mary against said action this $2,200 note, instituted said farm, said tenants on Kemper, and John Kemper and mers from invalidating count, a decree first seeking, in the in plaintiff, vesting of Kemper and to John E. Summers dam- pоssession, count, ejectment for second cetera, and, in the et *4 profits. ages, and rents homestead Mary possessed E. that effect was to the The rights of defeating any name, in her own eighty held in rights the Summers-Kempеr deed the that eighty and against said plaintiff a husband of death that the eighty; but to said good title passed a entirety; the by held in land widow homestead a cannot create a home- than greater estate a Mаry had ’sJ. death upon Edwin that the she became property: absolute her property became stead—the entirety the by formerly held the estate as to owner—and sole home- rights of (and first title acquired absolute E. first the fam- husband, the head of J., the death of stead) upon the plaintiff to became indebted long she after ily, April on the by formerly held to the land that as 1919); and (February 27, plaintiff and to as was void Summers-Kemper entirety sаid in plaintiff. Kemper and vested John out of was divested accordingly. went ejectment count the judgment on finding the Summers-Kem- that the court’s in acquiesce Defendants per plaintiff entitled plaintiff is deed was and that fraudulеnt to rights grant- conveyed to have the same declared ineffective unless — ap- beyond or’s Plaintiff has plaintiff. the reach of homestead — held the pealed to holding and the of nisi as correctness the litigants in present unquestioned. the wife’s name stands does contest homestead with reference the rules of law a exist- or that indebtedness an prior exist in incurred land ing subsequently unsecured by incurred unaffected indebtedness; ac- sharply when the they time widow but contest the quires entirety assert- by in estate the —defendants recording ing upon grant of the the homestead attaches of the the first death plaintiff asserting estate and exists the the hоmestead the family). (housekeeper of the husband limit of the We head presented review to are determinative issues as deemed of appeal. the
Speaking agree the by entirety, the we estate the can acquires rights descent; that by court nisi that the wife no homestead wife; the death of not create homestead in that upon greater husband’s death wife has a estate by a homestead. wife greater But the has in lands estate held entirety prior than a homestead The es death of husband. by tate the entirety in Missouri is the same as es the common law entirety. Saxy, tate F. Brewing Union Co. Stiffel’s [Otto 67, 70(8); 201 W. Frost v. Frost, 200 Mo. Bullock, Bains v. 119(1), 342,W. 343(1).] are “It has been held that the homestead fee no* separable 'Aro to They kept interests.’ divisible must be g& . Lewis, 579, 161 253(4).] [Armour Hi ba unity unity title, d and wife have time interest, unity ur, possession entirety. in estates r Blackstone Com mej ,ar. s, “And, therefore, givеn states: if an in estate fee they to man wife, joint-tenants, and his properly are neither nor in tenants being common: husband and wife one considered person in law, they cannot take are moieties, estatе but both toiú, per my. et entirety, per seized non . . .” Warvelle Property (3 in his work Ed.), following Real section uses the language: conveyance “A to husband and in the manner above indicated, joint-tenants does not constitutе them either or tenants common; are, legal they contemplation, but person, one . . . moieties. hence unable take While of survivor- *5 apparent gives ship the estate resemblance to joint-tenаncy, yet it joint-tenancy, materially from the differs for survivor succeeds to the simply, of by survivorship the whole is case the with grant virtue of the joint-tenants, but which vested the entire es-
949 in tate grantee, each or, contemрlation law, in in person of one with body duel Jones, consciousness.” Garner 68, 71(1), 52 Mo. states: but “Being person one law, they in took the estate as one person. being Each estate; the owner of the entire whom neither of any separate had joint or interest unity but whole. entirety or So if either died the estate survivor, continued in it ex the had isted before; unity entirety. only or undivided . . The > ’’ change by death foregoing' was in not in person, the еstate. The the case, authorities are reviewed Brewing Company supra (273 163, l.Mo. c. (l. l. 170 and 68), c. which states c. 71, respectively) : one, “On the of own death the other continued to the whole estate. There was еstate the no increase the as in case of of the survivorship joint tenant.” also, Frost, of [See, Frost v. 474, 527, Mo. 483, joining S. W. In holding the without 528.] husband, may the ejectment entirety, for maintain lands held the Bullock, Bains v. S. W. uses follow the ing languagе: “But grant true gran is that the also vests in each tee estate. . . the entire . Under the hus deeds to herself and ’’ band, then, plaintiff estate holds the entire in the lands claimed.
So, if Mary possessed rights in in homestead held eighty right (unquestioned her here), supra, own she, the authorities under possessed entirety. rights like in the eighty homestead held housekeeper Prior to her husband’s she was more death or respect family she was respect head of а with one acquired acquired other. Whatever was she estate be- in her as grant, of her husband continued which, after the death fore. spirit has
Such liberal as falls within their words and construction from creditors been laws protection the homestead for the accorded Gordon, 247 purpose. of those their beneficent within [Balance 359(a); Missouri 124(a), Mo. consult West Digest, Homestead, applicable statutory Key provisions No. 5.] housekeeper following every of or are effect: family exceeding sixty one land head of a hundred acres exempt execution. $1500 total value from attachment and 4221; Sec. Ann., p. R. S. R. Stat. [See. 1889.] constituting purpose After woman sole for the a married a femme R. transacting own, Stat. business of her Sec. (Sec. 1889) Ann., provides: “. . . A mar- p. S.R. in may exemption invoke now ried woman all and homestead laws protection personal force real owned family, except head of in cases where husband has claimed protection exemption prop- his own erty.” land Homesteads held common [Clark *6 950 own in her 622], a Thias, 628, 649, 616, 73 and
v. 173 Mo. S. W. [Sharp v. separate property may homestead in her name, claim a Virden, 70 v. 528, 963, 966; 84 S. W. McClure Stewart, 518, 185 Mo. (Mo. App.), 724; rel. v. (2d) State Oberheide Fed. consult ex and not disclose 397(4)]. instant does (2d) 395, 39 record W. S. and exemption ever claimed J. Summers 2998 rights. right upon Section married woman conferred in case accrues exemption and homestead laws” to “all invoke S. (Sec. R. filing upon for record of the deed however, defeated, 4234); subject, Ann., to be p. Mo. Stat. statutory occasion and not invoke this the wife does because has to but, by Sec provided until after husband the death of the claiming exemption 2998;, by tion husband which contingency protection property, for the of his own happen never instant case. and never can did should affirmed plaintiff 'judgment But nisi be contends the his antenuptial Kemper W. debts of because John is liable citing her; extent him from wifе of the Ann., 23 Mo. p. 5073; Bruere, Sec. R. Mo. Stat. Babb v. S. Works, App. 604; App. 30 Mo. v. Newberry, Wisdom v. Todd 51 App. judgment July Mo. 267. Plaintiff refers to his us is development law on the discussing Without details of the or case, therein, sue judgment the record disclosed record, obligation Mary instant was rendered E. Summer's Al against Mary and was $2910. sum supra], judgment against though woman Sec. married [see liability purport judgment establishing part to be antenuptial obligation of a wife. of his [Consult Bamberger, 261, 263; Louis, Gruen v. 12 v. 11 Mo. Merrill St. App. (6); App. Bruere, Mo. 23 466, 473(6); App. 604, Babb v. Deaver, Walker v. 79 Mo. plain We rule issue 681.] tiff, antenuptial without passing enforcibility on the debts Kemper against Mrs. Kemper. Mr.
Testimony sixty was placing a value on the оne hundred acres variously put $1,400 $6,000. between say judgment be
Defendants should with directions reversed judgment However, enter for defendants on each count. plaintiff may the evidence, protect debt, justice be able may be judgment be better if the served be reversed cause and the advised; plaintiff permitted proceed remanded as he be otherwise to in conformity entered herewith. [Consult Ry. Co., 845, 851, Rissell St. Louis-S. F. 336 Mo. (2d) 81 S. W. 624; Byrne (Mo.), 347(4); Ins. (2d) v. Prudential Cо. City Ry. Markley Co., So. 436, 446(5), v. Kansas (2d) 409, 518- 414(10); (2d) 504, (Mo.), Barlow v. Scott 85 S. W. (10); Lappin v. St. Nat. B. (Mo. App.), Louis L. C.
1025, 1027(3); Argeropoulous Rys. App. City Co., Kansas 369, 372(2).] Cooley It so ordered. *7 Westhues, CC., concur.
PER foregoing opinion by Boi-iling, C., adopt- CURIAM: The opinion as the ed All the judges court. concur. Pryor, Appellant. 253. State Jesse Two, August
Division appellant. Maughmer H.
Frederic