Helm v. Helm

11 Kan. 19 | Kan. | 1873

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Kingman, C. J.:

This cause came up from a decision of the district court sustaining a demurrer to the petition of plaintiff in error. It appears from the petition that plaintiff in error and the defendant James M. Helm were married on the 15th of April 1871; that James M. Helm was then the owner of eighty acres of land, upon which the husband and wife resided, and which was their homestead. On the 17th of June thereafter, and while they were residing on said land as their homestead, the land was conveyed to William Helm for the consideration of nine hundred dollars by deed signed by husband and wife; and two days thereafter the husband abandoned his wife. She seeks to have the deed set aside on two grounds. One is, that her signature was procured by the false representations of the defendants that her husband had purchased other lands in Shawnee county for a home; the other is, that her signature was procured by the threats and menaces of the defendants, they threatening her life unless she would sign the deed, and in apprehension of great danger if she did not sign the deed, she did sign it. The relief sought certainly could not be granted because the husband made representations that were false to induce his wife to sign the deed. If she relied on them, it was at her peril alone.

The second ground we think is sufficient to authorize the relief asked. Our homestead provision is peculiar. The homestead cannot be alienated without the joint consent of the husband and wife. The wife’s interest is an existing one. The occupation and enjoyment of the estate is secured to her against any act of her husband or of creditors without her consent. If her. husband abandons her, that use remains to her and the family. With or without her husband, the law has set this property apart as her home. It may be difficult to define the estate, but it is one nevertheless. It is not like dower. Dower is only a possible estate, an inchoate interest that, depending on uncertain events, the wife may never enjoy. That the wife’s right under our homestead laws is an existing interest, probably none will deny. She then having been compelled to sign away the interest by duress has a right to come into court and have that act declared null and void, so that her rights shall not be lost by the illegal conduct of those who attempted to profit by their violence. When her signature is declared void, the law comes in and disposes of the deed made by her husband without her consent. (Sec: 1, page 473, Gen.' Stat.) If the wife could not maintain this action, then an estate, to the immediate enjoyment of which she is entitled, and which might finally become hers absolutely, might be wholly lost. For the record shows that she has parted with her estate. It may well be questioned whether an innocent purchaser would not hold the land against her who had stood silent while he purchased for a full consideration the land which the record showed belonged to William Helm. Having then an estate in the land, with a right to immediate enjoyment, and her signature procured by threats being not that consent that the law requires for the transmission of the homestead, it seems to us that the demurrer ought not to have been sustained.

The judgment of the district court is reversed, with directions to overrule the demurrer and for further proceedings.

All the Justices concurring.