114 Kan. 614 | Kan. | 1923
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The action was one to quiet title to real estate in Wichita. The plaintiff prevailed, and the defendant appeals.
Walker claimed title under a deed from Maria Lee. The court found Maria Lee was holder of the naked legal title only, that she held such title as trustee for the benefit of Taylor, and that her conveyance to Walker was fraudulent and in violation of the trust. The evidence for Walker contradicted the evidence for Taylor. Both accounts of the origin and devolution of title could not be true. The court believed the evidence for Taylor and, in considering the appeal, this court must disregard the evidence for Walker. Besides that, Taylor’s evidence must be regarded in the light most favorable to him, and all inferences reasonably derivable from the evidence favorable to him must be indulged, in support of the court’s findings of fact. This being true, the question is whether there was any substantial evidence to sustain the finding of trust and violation of trust.
Taylor purchased the lots in controversy, and others, with his own money, in 1902. He bought a house, moved it upon the lots,
In 1905 or 1906, Everett Walker, a child five or six years of age, commenced to live with Maria Lee. He was in the house when
Witnesses testified to conversations with Maria Lee in which she told them the property belonged to Taylor. To one of them she gave the reason for the title being in her name, and others heard her talk about it. Bud Lee testified the original intention was the property should be a family home, and testified to a conversation between Maria Lee and Taylor in the summer or fall of 1917, the substance of which was, it was understood and agreed the property would be Taylor’s at her death. There was other convincing evidence that Taylor was not merely equitable owner, but the recognized dominant owner, whose will concerning management and enjoyment of the property was controlling, and that his sister, who, after 1917, was almost entirely dependent upon him, merely had a home and paper title, by virtue of his providence.
The statute provides that, when a conveyance for a valuable consideration is made to one person, and the consideration therefor is paid by another, no use or trust shall result in favor of the latter, but the title shall vest in the former. (Gen. S'tat. 1915, § 11679.) The statute further provides, however, that the section referred to shall not extend to cases in which it shall be made to appear that, by agreement and without fraudulent intent, the party to whom the conveyance was made was to hold the land in trust for the party paying the purchase money. (Gen. Stat. 1915, § 11681.)
Maria Lee paid nothing for the conveyance to her, and took title merely to accomplish the purpose for which title was taken in the name of her mother. Her relation to the property was precisely the same as that of her mother, and the statute applies just as if the original conveyance had been made to her.
It will be observed the statute does not require the agreement to
The evidence was, Taylor was a man who always paid his debts, and no fraud on his wife was intended or practiced. The property was purchased for a home for her as well as for others whom it fell to Taylor to support. He purchased a home in Kansas City, which he sold when he returned to Wichita to live. When he returned to Wichita, he lacked just fifty dollars of having one thousand dollars in cash in his pocket. (See Rayl v. Rayl, 58 Kan. 585, 50 Pac. 501.)
The deed from Maria Lee 'to Walker was purely voluntary. Taylor testified that after he returned from Kansas City Walker frequently borrowed money from him, and that Walker’s contributions to the family supplies were a sack of flour, a few potatoes, and occasionlly some cookies and fruit.
Taylor and Maria Lee were brother and sister, and he testified he had full confidence in her. When she died, the purpose for which title had been taken in her name had been accomplished. All the members of the original family were dead or had gone away except Taylor, who was in possession. The deed to Walker was a betrayal of confidence, and the court might well have quieted Taylor’s title without finding an agreement to hold the legal title for him. (Silvers v. Howard, 106 Kan. 762, 190 Pac. 1.)
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.