f 418 CHASE V. ANDRUS. [192 CHASE V. ANDRUS. 4-4221 . Opinion delivered March 16, 1936. TRusTs.—Wh'ere several persons contribute moneY with which to pay for land and the title is taken in the name of one of them only, a resulting trust arises in favor of the others to the extent of the payments made. So where one paid off mortgage on land purchased and also a portion of the purchase price taking title in name of his ,daughter a resulting trust arose in his favor to the extent of the payments made by him. Appeal from Benton Chancery Court; Lee Seavister, Chancellor; affirmed. W. 0. Young arid A. L. Smith, for appellants. • Alvin Seamster and Ben Ware, for appellee. MEHAFFir, J. In 1920 W. A. Stewart owned two adjoining tracts . _ of land in • Benton County, Arkansas. One tract was free from encumbrance and the other tract was encumbered by a mortgage held by Marion Wasson for the sum of $1,000. There had been a payment of $100 to Wasson. The value of this land was estimated to be $3,000 above the mortgage. H. C. Andrus, who was 70 years old, owned some property in Muskogee, Oklahoma, valued at $2,000. This was the home of Andrus and wife. W. B. Chase owned two tracts of land near Muskogee, Oklahoma, one of them with a six-room dwelling house on it valued at $2,000, and the other tract was valued at . $1,000. Mr. Andrus was the father of Mrs. Chase, wife of W. B. Chase, and Mrs. Andrus was her step-mother. W. A. Stewart desired to trade his property in Ben-ton County, Arkansas, for property in Oklahoma. An-
ARK.] CHASE V. ANDRUS. 419 drus and wife and Chase and wife came to Arkansas and looked at Stewart's place, and Andrus agreed With Stew-art to trade his Oklahoma property for Stewart's property in Arkansas, provided Mrs. Stewart would agree to it. Mrs. Stewart, after looking at the Andrus property, refused to make the trade. In the meantime, Andrus and wife had made a . deed to SteWart, and the deed and $500 was put in eScrOw. • After Mrs. Stewart declined to lrade for the Andrus property, Mr. Chase made the proposi: tion to trade his property in Oklahoma for the Stewart property, and this trade was accepted by the Stewarts. The Stewart property was valued at $4,000 and the' Chase property at $3,000; that is,..the Stewart property, less the encumbrance, was valued at $4,000. :Stewart . made a deed to FlOrence Chase, daughter of Andrus, and the amount due on the mortgage at the time it was paid was' $985. This amount was paid . by Andrus. Andrus and wife and Chase and wife agreed to live together on the place purchased from Stewart. Stewart's personal property was purchased for $1;000. H. C. Andrus died on February 3, 1935. This suit Was begun hy appellee April 9, 1935. her complaint 'she alleged that in.1921 . she and-her husband, together with .Florence Chase and her husband, W. B. Chase, purchased the 42-acre farm in. Benton County, Arkansas, describing it, the deed being made to Florence Cbase, wife of W. B. Chase and daughter of H. C. Andrus. The purchase price of the land was $3,000, -and the assumption of the mortgage due to Wasson. W. B. Chase purchased the personal property and equipment then on thefarm, including livestock and, tools, for the. sum of $1,000. Appellee alleged that at the time of the _purchase :she and her .frnsband paid $500 cash, and that the mortgage held by _Wasson for $1,000 was paid by her and her husband in June, 1922. The 'balance -of the purchase price of the land and all 'the purchase price of the personal property was paid by W. B. Chase. It was alleged that thp object of the purchase was to provide a joint hoMe for the two families who had never lived together before, and the deed to the land was -taken-in
420 CHASI) v. ANDRUS: [192 the name of the daughter, Florence Chase, as a matter of conVenience. 'W. B. Chase worked the farm, keeping exclusive control of the personal property. H. C. Andrus, was a blacksmith and erected a shop . near• the 'dwelling house, and earned about -$1 a day; which was expended in the general expenses of •the• two families. She also alleged that she and her •husband rented 'the property in.Oklahoma and in the six years this ambunted to $1,800, and was used in payMg the, joint, expenses of the families. Appellee owned property in Muskogee which she sold for $1,100, and this_ was .expended for the beuefit of. all; :a part of It being 'spent in,the purchase of an automobile for the joint use of.. the families ; that H..C. Andrus bought and paid for material•necessary. to build a :large barn, ,a garage and blacksmith shop. They. also financed the purchase and setting out of an orchard.. 'They expended $600 impermanent, •buildings and improvements on the farm; that . during •their 'years of plenty,' W. B. Chase 'had free access . to their .bank:account, lmt in 1928, when•• • their,'money.. was exhausted; and•.H.;-0. Andrus; being 78 years of age, could no longer earn . so .large amount at his blacksmith shop, it became necessary for W. B. Chase . to contribute to the family maintenance. Trouble arose at once, and-in May, 1930, 'W. B.. Chase and his wife moved to a nearby farm, leaving the old peopk. the use of the house and garden;- that. W.• B.•Chase is still working the farm and retains the proceeds for himself ; that in 1930, H. .C...Andrus made . and executed' a. will be-. queathing to his daughter; Florence ., $1, 'and to appellee all bis undivided interest in the 42-acre farm above •described. Appellee is now past 75 years of age. 'W. B1 Chase has caused a deed to be• 'executed by-Florence Chase . to -himself ; that the lands are' not 'susceptible to be partitioned . or divided -in . kind. She prayed for-a . decree partitioning the land; and .that. Said, lands be • sold and the proceeds • be divided among 'said- 'parties -according to their interest therein.. Appellants filed answer' denying most of the allegations in the complaint, and alleging that the farm was to belong to Florence Chase; and that ;Chase ;and Andrus
ARK.] CHASE V. ANDRUS. 421' purchased . the personal property for $1,000, each . of then" paying $500. All the allegations with reference to appel-lee's right or interest in the lands are specifically denied by appellants. Theyi admit the :execution of the will, but deny that Andrus had:any right or interest in the land. They also describe the, purchase of the property in detail, which contradicts the statements in appellee's complaint. They allege in their answer a supplementary contract in which .Andrus was to pay $500 on the personal property, his deposit in the bank in escrow to be used for that purpose; that they : were to share in all the proceeds from the sale of any or all the personal property ; that Andrus and his wife, tbe appellee, .were to live with Chase and his wife as !a part of the family asiong as it was mutually agreeable. The evidence is in conflict, and it would serve no useful purpose to set it out in full. The admitted facts are that Andrus put. up $500 in escrow to pay on the'land; • that he . paid the $1,000 . Mortgage, which at the time he paid it, in June following their trade in December, aMouMed to . $985 ; that be built the blacksmith shop ; that he paid for materinl amounting to .something more than $50 ; that he niade a will in which he bequeathed bis interest 'in this particular pyoperty to appellee. The house on the farm burned and was rebuilt, and, except during the time . that it was being rebuilt, appellee has lived on the farm from the time they purchased it until Dow, and is still living on it. The evidence is conflicting as to the purpose for which Andrus paid the $985, but it is not disputed that he paid it. The court found thnt the title to the property is, held in trust for the appellee to the extent of payments made by her and ,her husband of the purchase price of the lands, and ordered that the• lands be sold and the proceeds •divided among the parties according to their respective interests, and found that the interest of the appellee 'was one-fohrth of the value of the farm: This appeal is prosecuted to reverse the decree of the chancellor.. ,• Itis the contention of the appellant that a trust was norcreated and that for that. reason appellee iS not en-
422 CHASE V. .ANDRUS. [192 titled to any interest in the land. They call attention to Hatcher v. Wasson, Bank Commissioner, 191 Ark. 765, 87 S. W. (2d) 578. •In that case there was a suit pendL ing against Hatcher and • it* *as 'discovered before the Sale 'that Hatcher had eonveyed the property, except his homestead;to his two 'sons, a separate portion to: each. His sons did not pay anything; and the conveyance was manifestly for the purpose of defeating his creditors, and the court held that : the cOnveyances were void. The eourt said in that case : "To create such a trust by reason 'of the payment . Of the purchase price, the payment must be made at the time of -the purchase or prior thereto so as to form a part of the same. transaction." In that case there was no consideration except 'love and affection for his children. , . The next ' case to Which appellant calls attention, and relies 'on is Chaffin v. , Crow, 182 Ark. 621, 32 S. W. (2d)' 155. In that . case, : • Crow and : his wife and children had been killed in annecident: Ai : the time Of his death he was, the owner, by warranty deed, of eertain lands in, Boone and Newton 'counties. :He died intestate. Chaffin, the father , of Mrs. Ciow,- brought suit seeking to be de-dared the Owner . of one-half interest in the lands of which . Claude Crow. died seiied and pessessed, and ask.- ing:fOr.a_partition,:nnd, , asked that a. trust , be, declared inuring to .the benefit 'Of Chaffin. , The evidence-Simply showed that at one tithe Chaffin had given his .daughter, Mrs. Crow, the sum of $750.. The * court held that' no trust resulted in his favor. Appellants then call attention to Kerby v. Field, 183' Ark. 714, 38' S. W. (2d) 308. In that- Case' a deed given was construed aS a mortgage,' and we- do not think that case has . any application- here. A number of cases are referred to by the appellants; but in none of them nre the facts similar to the factS here. -Appellants 'refer to 26 R. C. L. 1223; On 1224 itis stated: . ":But it: is now a generally. accepted rule that a resulting trust may' arise in favor of one who furnishes a part of the purchase money for land, where the title iS taken in another, though , there is a- diverSity of OpiniOn as to whether there
ARK.] 42.3 . must be. a distinct understanding that the payment is for a definite interest in land, or whether the fact of furnishing the Money without more will raise a resulting thist. * * So it is' held that, where several persons -contribute money to pay for land, and the title is taken in the . name of . one ofthem, a resulting:trust arises in favor of the others pro tanto." , In the instant case, as • we have already said, the undisputed proof . shows.that $500 in cash was . put up as a payment on the land.. To be sure, Chase testified that the $500 was used , for purchasing the personal property, but he is contradicted in this. by the appellee, and.there is . ho evidenee in the yecdrd that .the purchase . Of the personal . .prOp6ity . waS eVer 'disCussed or .. thOlight . of when .thiS $500 was . put up in; addition fo this, While H O. AUdrus is *dead and 'we cannOt have hiS testinionY, hi's Will indicates 'that he Was , the , owner of an interest in this land; Then there is no sati isfactory...explan,ation . .13y appellants as to why .Ana.rus paid .$95 to Wasson. .. We do not deem it, necessary to set out more. of .the facts.. The- -evidence .is.in..conflict,,but we think the• circumstances corroborate appellee's evidence; and we: cannot say that the chancellor's , finding waS against the preponderance of the evidence:, . The decree is affirmed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.