Wiley v. Wiley

Pattison, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The facts as alleged in the appellee’s hill filed in this case, in the Circuit Court for Garrett County, are substantially as follows: The appellee, plaintiff below, with his son, George Wiley, the appellant, more than twenty-one years of age and unmarried, in 1881 purchased from William B. Getty a tract of land known as the “Solomon Sibert Earin’’, situated in Garrett county, containing three hundred acres of land, more or less, for the sum of three thousand dollars, of which no part was to be paid in cash. The father was uneducated, could not write at all and could read printed matter only, and that with great difficulty. The preparation and execution of the contract of sale was entrusted to the care and attention of the son, the father was not present at its execution.

By the written contract with Getty, the appellant became the sole purchaser of the land and by the deed thereafter executed the land was conveyed to the son alone. The sale and conveyance to the appellant was made without the knowledge of the appellee and against the agreement had with the appellant in respect thereto, and it was not xrntil after the execution of the contract and deed that he learned of the same. The appellant later executed to the grantor, Getty, a mortgage upon the property to secui’e the payment of the entire sum of three thousand dollai;s, to be paid, as provided in the contract of sale, on or before the 23rd day of April, 1893, the interest thereon to he paid annually. At the time of the pui’chase of this property Alexander Wiley, the appellee, was living with his family on a farm about one and one-half miles from the Sibert Farm.

His family at that time consisted of his wife and six children, including the appellant, five of them sons and one a daughter.. The oldest of the children, not including the appellant, ⁶⁴⁸ was then fifteen or sixteen years of age, while the youngest was only about eight or nine years old. George, while living with his father, at times worked for others in the neighborhood. The appellee at the time had two horses, a number of cows, twenty-five or thirty sheep, and wagons, plows, harrows and other farming implements.

George had no property and little or no money. The Sibert farm being for sale, George and one Hoover considered purchasing it, but before reaching a definite conclusion, Hoover decided that he would not undertake it. It was then that George approached his father and suggested that he join him in buying it. After investigation the father consented.

The farm was purchased by them under the agreement that the entire family, the father and the six children, were to move upon the farm, take possession of, cultivate and operate it. The stock of the father was to be used thereon and the labor of himself, his wife and the five younger children was to be .contributed by him as his part of the undertaking. Against this the son was to give his labor. Out of what was produced upon the farm the, family was to be supported, and one-half of the net proceeds from the sale of the products was to belong to the father and one-half to the son, but the whole thereof was to be applied to the payment of the purchase money for the farm until the whole of the purchase money was paid, at which time the father and son should each hold a one-half interest in the farm.

Pursuant thereto the family moved upon the farm. The house thereon was small and would not comfortably accommodate them. Therefore, in the spring of 1883, they built a new house from timber cut from the premises, and in the building of the house they all contributed their- labor. They all lived in this, house until the marriage of George Wiley some ten or .twelve years thereafter. “During that time the wife of the plaintiff, Martha Wiley, and his children, boys and girls, helped in the management of the farm; made sugar in the springtime from the sugar camp, butter from ⁶⁴⁹ the cows in the summer, and the said Martha made a great deal of money by weaving; carpets and other materials to aid in paying the price of the farm.” Upon the marriage of George the second house was built and when completed it was occupied by him and his wife, the old folks still occupying the first house, but the management and operation of the farm continued as it had been prior to George’s marriage.

It is in the second house that George and his family still live, and the first is still in the occupancy of the father and mother. Tpon this farm was a sugar camp, which seems to have been quite profitable, producing each year several hundred dollars. They raised upon the farm the usual farm crops, and eggs and butter were sold therefrom. The products were sold by George and the money therefor was received by him, with the understanding that he was to pay over the proceeds to William B. Getty upon the purchase money for the farm.

The appellee did not know the amount of their earnings or the extent of the payments upon the purchase money made by George, but “he had the utmost confidence in his son, and thought he would act honorably towards him in accordance with the terms of the agreement as originally made between them; and in consequence he never required any account in any way for the money, although he would frequently remind George of his obligations to render an account of what they had jointly produced from their farm and their labors, and always supposed that his son George would see that his rights- in the premises were protected; and that when he would go to his son George for some satisfaction in the matter or to get some statement George would invariably put him ‘off’, with some flimsy excuse, and, knowing the easy disposition of his father, the plaintiff, would very often walk off and make no reply to the plaintiff’s demand.” That in addition to the money coming into the hands of George from the sale of the farm products, he likewise received a considerable sum of money from the sale ⁶⁵⁰ of timber from said lands, for wbicb be bad never accounted to tbe plaintiff. ETor bas be accounted to tbe plaintiff for other moneys received by bim from tbe sale of tbe products of said farm, and be refuses to make any settlement with tbe plaintiff, although be bas repeatedly called upon bim in recent years to do so, and although tbe title to tbe farm is altogether in tbe name of tbe appellant. As a result thereof tbe plaintiff and bis wife “have been literally stripped of the means of livelihood while tbe said George bas filled bis pockets with tbe proceeds of said products and timber, and bas actually loaned out and bought other property with tbe money belonging to this plaintiff.” Upon these alleged facts tbe plaintiff asked fon tbe passage of “a decree requiring the defendant and bis wife to convey to bim tbe undivided moiety of three hundred acres of land, or failing in that, to pass a decree requiring tbe defendant to account to bim for bis share of tbe sale of timber, etc., from tbe said premises, and for such other and further relief as tbe nature of bis case may require.” At tbe conclusion of tbe case tbe bill was amended by striking out tbe name of Margaret Wiley as defendant, and by adding thereto a prayer for tbe dissolution of tbe partnership. Tbe defendant answered denying that tbe farm was purchased by him and bis father, and also denying tbe existence of tbe alleged agreement between bim and bis father, tbe plaintiff, in respect to tbe purchase of said farm, alleging that tbe same was purchased by bim under a written agreement with Getty, dated December 26th, 1881, by wbicb be was to be tbe sole owner of tbe lands in fee, and that pursuant to such sale be took possession of tbe farm and bas so remained in possession of tbe same unto this day; that on tbe 20th day of August, 1882, tbe said lands were conveyed to bim by William E. Getty by deed of that date; that on tbe 16th day of October following be executed unto tbe said Getty a mortgage to secure tbe entire payment of tbe purchase money therefor, and that in accordance with the ⁶⁵¹ terms of said agreement and in accordance with the terms of said mortgage he, without the assistance of his father, mother, brothers and sister, paid off said mortgage debt and all interest due thereon; and further alleging that the alleged agreement was a mere verbal agreement for the sale of lands or an interest in and concerning lands and that there was no memorandum or note of said agreement signed by the said George L. Wiley, and that such agreement is void under the fourth section of the Statute of Frauds^wpoxi which statute the defendants rely and now plead the same in. bar of the relief claimed by the plaintiff.

He also denied that the plaintiff ever paid any part of the purchase money for said farm directly or indirectly, or that he was ever in possession of the same or any part thereof except as tenant of him, the owner. He admitted the sale of timber from the land amounting to nine hundred dollars, which he alleges he had the right to sell, he being the owner of said land. He likewise admitted the sale by him of sugar and other products from the farm, and the application of a large part thereof to the payment of the purchase money for the farm, but alleged that these too were his property and he had the right to do so without accounting to the appellee for any part thereof, as he had no interest therein or claim thereto. He likewise pleaded the Statute of Limitations.

To this answer the general replication was filed, and the learned Court below, upon hearing the evidence upon the issues joined, passed an order or decree dissolving the co-partnership existing between the plaintiff and defendant, and decreeing an accounting between them. It is from this order or decree that this appeal is taken. We have no difficulty in reaching the conclusion, from the evidence in this case, that an agreement was made by and between the appellant and the appellee to purchase the farm at the sum mentioned, and that after its purchase they were to move upon and take possession of the lands and were to operate and cultivate the same jointly, and the ⁶⁵² net profits arising from their joint labor were to be applied to the payment of the purchase money for said lands, and when, by the .application of the same, the entire purchase money was paid, the appellant. and the appellee were each to have one-half undivided interest therein as tenants in common. The existence of such an agreement is established by the testimony of the appellee, Martha Wiley, his wife; Mrs. Doolittle, his daughter, and his two sons, Harry and Jacob Wiley.

And the appellant by his own testimony admits that the purchase of this land jointly with his. father was considered and discussed by them on a number of occasions, and not until the day of the consummation of the sale did his father determine not to join him in its purchase. He testified that after several conversations, more particularly with his