Case ID: iowa_40/html/0688-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Beck, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Garrett v. Baldwin et al.
    Trust: husband and wipe. Where the wife furnished the husband with money to purchase a homestead which he so applied, his estate cannot be held for the amount.
    
      Appeal from Chichasaxv Circuit Court.
    
    Tuesday, December 22.
    Action in chancery. Plaintiff is the widow of Benjamin Wicks and defendants, are the administrators of his estate and his heirs. The petition alleges that plaintiff in the lifetime of deceased, and after her marriage with him, furnished him, as a loan, $200 which she had inherited from her father’s estate. The money was invested in land which is now the property of the estate. She asks that an equitable portion of the land be set off to her, or 'that she have judgment for the money so advanced, with interest. The answer denies the allegations of the petition. The cause was referred and upon the report, which was adverse to plaintiff, a decree was entered dismissing her petition. She appeals to this court.
    
      8. P. Leland, for appellant.
    No appearance for appellee.
   Beck, J.

The referee found, as a fact, that the money mentioned in the petition was given by the plaintiff to her husband for the purpose of purchasing a homestead and, under this arrangement, was invested with a larger amount of the husband’s own money, in the farm, a part of which plaintiff asks may be set off to her. He finds, as a matter of law, that the transaction was not a loan, but a surrender of the money for the purpose specified. This conclusion, we think, is correct. The money was given by the wife to the husband for a specific purpose; he was charged with a trust in respect to it. The trust was to be discharged for their mutual benefit— the purchase of a homestead to be occupied by both. After he has discharged this trust, his estate cannot be held liable for the money which he has faithfully used.

No other question in the ease need be considered as our conclusions, above expressed, support the correctness of the court’s action in sustaining the report of the referee and dismisssing the petition.

Appiemed. '