This аction was commenced in the district court for Jefferson county by Edward B. Cowles, hereafter called (he plaintiff, to obtain a decree dеclaring him to be the owner in fee of the west half of the northeast quarter and the east half of the northwest quarter of section 6, township 3, north of range 3 east, situated in said county, and quiet his title thereto. Service was had upon the defendant, who at that time was in Chicago, Illinois, and, owing to illness, she fаiled to appear in time and the plaintiff had a default decree. Thereafter she filed a petition to open the decree, which was sustained, and upon issues joined a trial of the case was had upon its merits, which reulted in a second decree for the plaintiff, and the defеndant has appealed.
Appellant assigns three reasons for a reversal of the decree. First, because the plaintiff failed to еstablish any trust; second, the petitioner did not come into court with clean hands; third, the plaintiff has always recognized the title of the defendant, and. hence there could be no adverse possession.
Upon reading the evidence we find that on the 7th day of May, 1872, plaintiff purchased the land in quеstion by contract from the Burlington & Missouri. River Railroad Company and paid one-tenth of the purchase price in cash; that he thereafter, from time to time, made the deferred payments, and therefore we find that plaintiff paid the full purchase price of the land. We further find that at the timе of his purchase he took possession of the premises, and that such possesion has been continuous and uninterrupted to the present timе; that he placed valuable improvements upon the land, including a dwelling house,
In disposing of defendant’s first contention, it is sufficient to say that the well-established rule in this state is that when one person buys real estate and pays the purchase price thereof, and the title is taken for convenience in the name of another, the person taking the title will hold the property in trust fоr the person paying the purchase price. Hoehne v. Breitkreits,
It is strenuously сontended, however, that plaintiff can have no relief in a court of equity because the transaction by which the title to his land was taken in the nаme of his mother was fraudulent, and therefore he does not come into court with clean hands. There are two reasons why this contention cаnnot be maintained: First, the defendant, by her pleading, has not challenged the bona fides of the transaction, and therefore, strictly speaking, she was not entitled to any relief on that ground; second, it appears from the evidence, and beyond peradventure, that the land in question was, at all times, the homestead of the plaintiff, that he was the head of the family which resided with.him thereon. It is therefore clear that this homestead,, which was at that time worth less than |2,000 was not the subject of fraudulent alienation. In Derby v.
Finally, defendant’s claim that plaintiff always recognized her title to the premises seems to be wholly unsupported by the testimony. The evidence clearly establishes the fact that, not only the defendant, but every member of the plaintiff’s family, of which she was one, always recognized him to be the owner of the land in question. It is shown, without dispute, that defendant always, except a short time prior to the commencement of this action, openly and positively declared that she had no interest in the premises; that it belonged to the plaintiff, and that she intended, as soon as the plaintiff married, to convey it to his. wife; that after his marriage she told his wife that she thought it was better for the head of the family to have the title to the land, and that she would convey it to the plaintiff.
Upon the facts of this case, as shown by the evidence, the judgment of the district court was clearly right, and it is therefore
Affibmed.