Dеfendants in error, who were plaintiffs in the trial court, instituted this quief title action against plaintiffs in error, who are husband and wife and were defendants in the trial court. The parties will be designated herein as they appeared in the trial court.
Luther S. Wilkerson, the only plaintiff who appeared and testified in the trial court and the only plaintiff referred to herein, acquired title to a tract of lаnd in Caddo County in September of 1961, and has ever since resided thereon. In July of 1962, defendants received a joint tenancy deed to this property from said plaintiff and placed it of record. Approximately two weeks later they acquired a corrective deed and placed it of record.
This action was for cancellation of the aforementioned deeds and to quiet plaintiff’s title in said property as against said defendants. Plaintiff alleged that defendants received the deeds with the agreement and understanding they would merely hold title to the property for plaintiff and would reconvey same to him at any time upon his rеquest; and thereafter, upon request, they refused to do so.
The matter was heard on the merits and the trial court entered judgment fоr. plaintiff holding defendants took title to the property in trust for plaintiff; quieted plaintiff’s title to the property and ordered a reconveyance of the property to plaintiff. Defendants were granted a lien on said property for services they performed for plaintiff. From the order overruling their motion for a new trial, the defendants have perfected this appеal.
CONTENTIONS
Defendants contend that a valid warranty deed was executed and delivered to defendants; there was adequate сonsideration for the deed; the deed was made free and clear of any fraud, duress or misrepresentation on defendаnts’ part; and that plaintiff did not come into court with clean hands.
Plaintiff contends the judgment of the trial court that defendants received the deeds in trust for the use and benefit of plaintiff, is sustained by the evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
Plaintiff’s petition alleged and the case was tried оn the theory that defendants received and held title to said property in trust for plaintiff. The judgment of the trial court was rendered оn this contention. Therefore, the basic question presented in this appeal is whether the record supports the judgment that dеfendants took title in trust for plaintiff.
Title 60 O.S.1961, Sec. 136 in part, provides :
“No trust in relation to real property is valid, unless created or declared:
“3. By operation of law.”
In Trimble v. Boles,
Although, the evidence is in conflict, plaintiff introduced evidence which may be briefly summarized thusly: Plaintiff is 74 years old and has lived on this farm ever since he purchased it. The house which was located thereon burned and plaintiff was living by himself in one end of the turkey shеd. Defendants never did live on this farm but rented a place 18 miles away. Plaintiff was under the impression a feed company might try to take this property because of a bill for turkey feed. He was the uncle of Helen Kunze, one of the defendants, and he deedеd the farm to her and her husband with the understanding they would deed it back to him when he desired. Defendants paid plaintiff nothing for this deed. Plaintiff asked defendants to reconvey the property to him so he could apply for a loan with which to build a house on the farm but defendants refused to do so. Prior to this action plaintiff ordered the defendants to never come back on the place. The mother of defendant Helen Kunze testified that defendants told her plaintiff transferred the farm to them in trust and when he asked for the place back they would reconvey it back to him the day he asked for it. The brother of defendant Helen Kunze also testified to thе above statements. There was a great deal of testimony regarding plaintiff’s having planted various crops and raised many turkеys; that defendants apparently sold most of the turkeys and other items from plaintiff’s farm. Elaboration on such matters is not necessаry since it applies more to the amount of the lien granted defendants and that is not an issue in this appeal.
This was an equitablе action tried to the court and in White v. Morrow, 187 Old. 72,
The trial court specifically found in its Journal Entry of Judgment that the “deeds from plaintiff to defendants were made in trust for thе use and benefit of plaintiff”. Applying the above principles of law to the record in the case at bar, we can only сonclude the judgment should be affirmed.
Defendants also argue that plaintiff does not come into a court of equity with clean hаnds, because he allegedly transferred this farm to defendants so as to prevent the feed company from taking it for a feed bill. In Teuscher v. Gragg,
Judgment affirmed.