82 W. Va. 384 | W. Va. | 1918
Lead Opinion
Plaintiffs instituted this suit against their brother Hiram Lynch for the purpose of having him declared to be a trustee holding the legal title to certain lands for the joint benefit of himself and the plaintiffs, for the purpose of having partition of said lands and an accounting of the issues and profits thereof. Pending the litigation Hiram Lynch died, and the cause was revived against his personal representative and
The plaintiffs and Hiram Lynch were the children of William B. Lynch who died in the year 1898. The tract of land involved formerly consisted of two adjoining tracts, one owned by the said William B. Lynch, and the other by his. brother Wesley C. Lynch. The William B. Lynch farm it appears contained 322.52 acres, and the Wesley C. Lynch farm 243 acres. In the year 1879 Wesley C. Lynch determined to. sell his farm and remove to the west. After some negotiations the title thereto was conveyed to Hiram Lynch. The consideration to be paid for this transfer was seven thousand dollars, of which two thousand dollars was paid in cash, and the principal of the residue never was paid until the development, of the land hereinafter referred to. At that time William B'.. Lynch was living upon his farm with his family, including; the said Hiram Lynch, and while it is denied by Hiram Lynchi it is satisfactorily proven that as soon as this conveyance was, made to Hiram Lynch the two farms were thrown together- and treated as one farm, and the said William B. Lynch continued to reside thereon. It appears that there was a considerable indebtedness against the William B. Lynch land.. In the year 1886 he executed a deed of trust conveying the-land to a trustee to secure these debts. The indebtedness secured amounted to $13,310.00, and it seems that this was more than the land was worth. At that time Hiram Lynch was still living on the farm with his father and was unmarried. In the meantime his two sisters, the plaintiffs, had married and left home. It is stated by them that Hiram refused to further lend his efforts to saving the William B. Lynch farm unless it was foreclosed under the deed of trust, and the title put in his name with a lien thereon for a sum more nearly commensurate with its actual value. In 1887 the deed of trust was foreclosed, and the tract of land -was purchased, by the Merchants National Bank for the sum of $7800.00;, This bank was one of the creditors secured by the deed of • trust, but the amount realized at the sale did not satisfy its. debt, it being practically all taken to pay prior debts. A.
In reaching a conclusion in this ease we must bear in mind the close relationship existing between the parties out of which ordinarily springs mutual trust and confidence. For this reason it is not strange that there is no satisfactory written evidence of all the transactions between the parties. The first inquiry is, did the conveyance made by Wesley C. Lynch
But it is said that the plaintiffs are barred by their laches; that they have waited too long to assert their rights; that a court of equity will not now entertain their stale claims. There is nothing to this contention. The evidence is overwhelming that until shortly before the institution of this suit Hiram Lynch never denied their interest, but, on the contrary, admitted it at all times and under all circumstances. There was no reason for the plaintiffs to go into court to assert rights which were admitted. It is clearly shown, not only by the plaintiffs, but by outside parties, that Hiram Lynch was proposing to convey them their interest in this land, and that these proposals of his continued until a short time before this suit was actually brought. If bad faith can be charged to any party because of the delay, it is to Hiram Lynch. It might be said that he lulled his sisters into a sense of security by repeated promises to convey to them their interest so that he might prevent any litigation until after material witnesses had died and their evidence become unavailable.
We conclude, therefore, that at the time of the purchase of the Wesley C. Lynch property, it is clearly proven that the purchase money paid at that time was derived from a sale of William B. Lynch’s cattle; that there was an understanding that the title would be taken in Hiram’s name as a trustee for his father. We further conclude that all of the money that was ever paid upon this land was derived either from the land itself, or from the plaintiffs in this ease, after the payment of the two thousand dollars; that their joint use of the two fai'ms as one, and the purchase by Hiram in 1887 of the William B. Lynch farm, under the circumstances detailed, was in accord with the arrangement made in 1879 in regard to the Wesley C. Lynch farm. It is clear that the purpose of all these people was to create an inheritance for the children of William B. Lynch, and they all worked to that one end, and used their common property for that purpose,
We, therefore, reverse the decree and enter a decree here holding that the plaintiffs and the heirs-at-law of Hiram Lynch are the joint owners of the land in controversy, and that each of the plaintiffs is entitled to a one-third interest therein, and the heirs-at-law of Hiram Lynch to the other one-third thereof; and remand the cause for the purpose of having the legal title transferred to the real owners, for partition of the land among the owners as herein ascertained, and for the taking of such accounts as may be necessary to fully settle the interest of the parties in the issues and profits arising from the land. Beversed and remanded.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting):
The majority opinion concedes that the testimony is too
No deed was ever made, nor do I think the evidence is sufficient to prove that plaintiffs ever had any interest in the land. Mere admissions and oral declarations, that another has an interest in land, are too indefinite and uncertain to establish a trust. Cassady v. Cassady, 74 W. Va. 53.
It is not proven that William B. Lynch caused the title to his land to be placed in his son to be held in trust for all his children, as stated in the syllabus. He never had title to the Wesley C. Lynch place; Hiram bought it, and he accounts for every dollar used in paying for it. Although he was their living with his father he was about thirty years old, and had been working and earning money for himself. He had worked as bookkeeper for a coal mining company, conducted a mercantile business and dealt in calves, sheep and wool, and earned money shipping cattle for his uncle Josiah Lynch. While Ms good fortune in finding oil in the land, thus enab
That Hiram Lynch, and not his father, bought the farm is proven, not only by his own testimony and the facts that the deed was made to him in fee simple absolute and his oto notes were given for the deferred payments, some of which were made to extend through many years, but also by the testimony of a son of Wesley C. Lynch, who knew of the transaction. The opinion emphasizes the fact that, shortly after the purchase, the dividing fences were remoyed and the two farms were used as one, a fact not material, if true, but which is denied by Hiram Lynch, who says that, when his father pastured some of the land as he sometimes did, he charged him for it, as he did others for whom he frequently pastured stock. Moreover, he proved that, at the time he bought the farm, his father owed him, and filed with his evidence two notes made by his father to him, one for $43.00 and the other for $225,00, both dated in January, 1878, which were never paid.
The home place was sold on July 11, 1887, under a trust deed which his father had placed on it to secure more than $13,000 which he owed to various creditors, and was purchased by the Merchants National Bank, his largest creditor, at the price of $7,800. Hiram Lynch then later, on August 6, 1887, purchased it from the bank for $9,660, and borrowed $4,000 from R. T. Lowndes, a director of the bank, with which to make the cash payment and buy cattle with which to stock the farm, giving a trust deed on the land and the stock, to secure him and also to secure his notes for the deferred payments on the land. Not one dollar of the purchase money was supplied by his father, who was then utterly insolvent. Title to the land had passed from his father before Hiram purchased from the bank, and his father had no interest in the purchase. Hiram Lynch is. fully supported, not only by the facts which call for the clearest kind of evidence to overthrow them, but also by the testimony of Mr.
That his brothers-in-law, the husbands of plaintiffs, assisted him in carrying his burden of debt for a long time, is admitted, but they did it by lending him money on his own credit, and not because their wires had, or thought they had any interest in the land. He executed his notes to them, at the time, for all the money he bom-owed, and has since paid off those notes with interest, and exhibits the notes executed to Clayton, aggregating about $1,500 all endorsed by Clayton “paid”, in the year 1900, ten years before this suit was brought. The money he borrowed from the Barbees aggregated something over $600, and was paid in 1894 and prior thereto, long before oil was discovered in the land. He exhibits stubs of checks winch were used in making the payments; and these payments are not denied. His letters to Clayton concerning the oil lease, and his furnishing him a copy of the lease are perfectly consistent with his claim of absolute ownership of the land. He then owed Clayton about $1,500, and wanted to satisfy him that he had a good prospect of being able to pay him soon. This is the most natural and reasonable interpretation to give his act; and the reason he was not as careful to inform the Barbees is because he then owed them nothing.
Among the numerous letters, appearing in the record, which passed between Hiram Lynch and his sisters, many of them containing importunate requests for assistance from Mm, and complaining of sickness in their families and of their imperative need of money, not one of them contains a single expression even intimating that the request for money is based on a legal right to demand it; nor is there a line produced, written by Hiram Lynch wherein he acknowledges they had such right. At one time he had about forty producing oil wells on his land, and the royalties therefrom placed bim in good circumstances, better perhaps than he had ever before hoped for, and he could afford to be generous to
This case does not fall within the principles announced in Kersey v. Kersey, 76 W. Va. 70, which was a suit between brothers over the property of a corporation 'in which they both held stock, thus showing both to be interested in the property when it was sold; nor Bond v. Taylor, 68 W. Va. 317, which was a suit growing out of a previous agreement to buy timber on joint account, for purposes of speculation; nor Lantz v. Tumlin, 74 W. Va. 196, which was a suit growing out of a mining partnership in which both parties had made investments. But it does clearly come within the principles
I would affirm the decree.