Garrett v. Baldwin

Supreme Court of Iowa

Garrett v. Baldwin

40 Iowa 688

DecidedDecember 22, 1875

StatusPublished

This text of 40 Iowa 688 (Garrett v. Baldwin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Garrett v. Baldwin, 40 Iowa 688 (iowa 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

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. '

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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. '

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 Iowa 688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garrett-v-baldwin-iowa-1875.