94 Neb. 227 | Neb. | 1913
Rhebe A. Goodman began this action in the district court for Johnson county to establish her interest in cer
Thomas Phippin died in Waukesha county, “Wisconsin, in 1847. He left surviving him his widow, Ann Phippin, and two children, the said Phebe, afterwards Phebe Goodman, and another daughter, who a few days later died in infancy. The widow, Ann Phippin, afterwards married Worthy Luce, and two children were born to them, the defendant, George Luce, and the defendant, Luvina Smith, formerly Luce. Phebe’s mother, Ann Luce, formerly Ann Phippin, died in 1901 in Johnson county, Nebraska, and afterwards, in June, 1909, Worthy Luce died intestate in that county.
The petition alleges that when Thomas Phippin died he was the owner of 40 acres of land in Waukesha county, Wisconsin, and some personal property, and that under the law of Wisconsin at the time his two daughters inherited the land, and, upon the death of the younger «laughter, the daughter Phebe inherited her interest in the land, so that Phebe became the owner of the 40 acres of : and; that this 40 acres of land was afterwards sold for about $1,600, and with the proceeds, together with about $2,000 realized from 20 acres of land in Waukesha county owned by Mr. and Mrs. Luce, the real estate in question in Johnson county was purchased by Mr. and Mrs. Luce, so that this plaintiff is entitled to an undivided four-ninths interest in said real estate. After the death of Mr. and Mrs. Luce, these defendants, George Luce and Luvina Smith, claimed to be the owners of the land in Johnson county as the heirs of Worthy Luce, and that their half sister had no interest therein.
Hid Thomas Phippin purchase and pay for the 40-acre tract? If he did, have the proceeds realized from that 40 acres been traced by this evidence to the purchase of the
Mr. Phippin never received a deed of the land, and after his death a deed Avas executed by the former OAvner to Ann Phippin. It recites a consideration of $25, and there is no other evidence cited in the briefs that she paid any
It is contended that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. As we have already said, there was no quarreling in this family. Each appears to have been willing to assist the others in any way possible. They all understood in a general way what the interest of each was in the property, and none of them had any reason to suppose that Lis or her right or interest would be denied by the others, until after the death- of Mr. and Mrs. Luce, when his two children claimed the whole property. The interest of Mrs. Goodman, then, was held by Mrs. Luce in trust until the land was exchanged for Nebraska land, and afterwards was so held in trust by Mr. Luce, and the statute of limitations would not begin to run against the claim of Mrs. Goodman until the parties who held her property in trust denied her rights therein. The $1,000 that Mrs. Goodman paid when she took title to the 80 acres of land above mentioned was invested in other.lands, and she should have the benefit thereof. A decree should be entered allowing the plaintiff an interest in the land to the amount and value of $1,000, and an equal one-third interest in the remainder.
The judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause remanded, with instructions to enter a decree as above indicated.
Reversed.