Court Opinion

ID: 9826239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:39:50.42265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:58.146525
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Fraser.
I dissent. Mr. McKinney put his daughter, Mrs. Coggins, and her husband in possession of a tract of land. This action was brought on the theory that the possession was given as a part performance of a contract to convey. This theory failed utterly. The plaintiff himself testified that there was no contract to convey, but that his father-in-law said, “I intend for you and Minnie (Mrs. Coggins) to have it,” and added, “I suppose he intended to include me.” Mr. Coggins, with the reluctant consent of Mr. McKinney, put improvements on the place. The reluctant consent applied to the gr.eat cost of the improvements. Mr. Coggins and his wife had a disagreement, and she left the place and went back to her father. Mr. McKinney then undertook to regain possession of the place, and this action was brought to protect the rights of Mr. Coggins in the land. Now, what are those rights? Mr. Coggins improved the land of another without a contract as to future enjoyment, and, as a matter of law, the improvements belong to the owner of the land. It is claimed, however, that there is an equity, and by this equity Mr. Coggins must be paid. I see nothing in the case except the supposition of Mr. Coggins to indicate that Mr. Coggins was to receive any other rights or privileges than such as every man has in the property of his wife. If Mrs. Coggins were asking protection, then the equity may apply. Mrs. Coggins repudiates the claim of her husband, and sets up no claim against her father.
It seems to me that the only inference to be drawn from the testimony is that-the real party in interest is Mrs. Cog-gins, and not Mr. Coggins. Treating the agreement, if any, as that of Mrs. Coggins, 'all that Mr. Coggins can claim successfully is that he improved the land of his wife, and, if he did, the presumption is that the improvements were a gift *275from the husband to his wife (21 Cyc. 1297), and there is no evidence of a contract to repay and. no trust created thereby. If the rule were otherwise, a husband could improve his wife out of her property. It may amount to confiscation by improvement.
The equity of Mr. Coggins disappears when the facts are considered. When Mr. McKinney offered to put Mr. and Mrs. Coggins in possession of the land, Mr. Coggins protested that the other children might object to the undue preference. Mr. McKinney said the property was his, and he would do with it as he pleased. The land cost Mr. McKinney $1,600, and he charged 8 per cent, only as rent, or $128. This was paid as rent until this trouble began. Then Mr. Coggins insisted on calling it interest. Mr. Coggins rented out the place for two years and collected $228 per annum as rent. The complaint alleges that Mr. Coggins was in possession for 12 or 14 years before this suit was commenced in 1916. Since that time Mr. Coggins has paid no rent.
The value of the improvements, as fixed by the master and Circuit Judge, is $800, and if $800 is the fair value of the improvements, then Mr. Coggins has lost nothing by his improvements._