Livingston v. Livingston

45 N.W. 233, 29 Neb. 167, 1890 Neb. LEXIS 193
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 19, 1890
StatusPublished

This text of 45 N.W. 233 (Livingston v. Livingston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Livingston v. Livingston, 45 N.W. 233, 29 Neb. 167, 1890 Neb. LEXIS 193 (Neb. 1890).

Opinion

Maxwell, J.

This is an action to have certain real estate described in the petition declared to have come to one Thomas S. Liv[170]*170ingston, deceased, by gift from bis step-mother, Helen Livingston, and that said land be decreed to the plaintiffs and that the defendants be excluded therefrom. On the trial of the cause the court below found the issue in favor of the plaintiff, and rendered a decree accordingly. The defendants appeal.

It is alleged in the petition that “on or about the 29th day of March, 1886, Thomas S. Livingston, of the city of Omaha, in the state of Nebraska, died intestate;0 that at tire time of his death said Thomas S. Livingston was seized of an estate in fee simple of the ufldivided half of the following described real estate, situated in the county of Douglas, state of Nebraska, and known as the east one-half of lot 6, in block H, in the city of Omaha; that said Thomas S. Livingston, deceased, left no issue nor other lineal descendants, nor widow, nor father living at the time of his death.

“The plaintiff Helen Livingston is the mother, the plaintiff Ella E. Jones is the sister of the whole blood, and the plaintiff Benjamin E. Livingston is the brother of the whole blood of said Thomas S. Livingston, deceased; the defendants Theodore C. Livingston, Charles C. Livingston, and Henry Livingston are the respective brothers and sisters of the half blood of said Thomas S. Livingston, deceased.

“The said land above described, of which said intestate was seized and possessed of the undivided half interest therein at the time of his death, came to said intestate from his said mother by a deed of quitclaim, duly executed and delivered on or about the 30th day of September, 3882. Said deed was duly recorded in book 43 of Douglas county records of deeds at page 453. The consideration named in said deed is the sum of one dollar, but in truth and in fact said intestate gave no valuable consideration for said land. Said conveyance was made wholly without any valuable consideration and was intended by the parties thereto so to [171]*171be made. Said conveyance was voluntarily made to said intestate by liis said mother, Helen Livingston, for no other consideration than her natural love and affection for him. Said laud came to said intestate by said deed as a gift from his said mother.

“Further complaining, the plaintiffs say that, by the laws of descent of the state of Nebraska, when any person dies seized of an estate in fee simple in lands, not having fully devised the same, leaving neither issue nor other lineal descendants, nor widow, nor father living at the time of his death, said estate descends in equal shares to his mother, his brothers and' sisters, and to the children of any deceased brother or sister by right of representation,” etc.

To this petition the defendants answered, in part, as follows : “ Further answering said petition, said defendants allege that said premises originally came to said intestate and to said defendant Theodore C. Livingston, jointly, by purchase from the city of Omaha, in the state of Nebraska; that the premises were by said city of Omaha conveyed to said Theodore C. Livingston by a warranty deed dated December 16, A. D. 1879, and duly recorded in the office of the clerk of Douglas county, Nebraska, on the 20th day of December, A. D. 1879, and recorded in book 29 of deeds, at page 541; that the consideration of said conveyance was the sum of $450; that the said consideration of said conveyance was paid jointly by said Theodore C. and Thomas S. Livingston in equal shares, and that said premises were mutually considered and acknowledged openly and always to be their joint property and were held and treated as such; that both said Thomas S. and Theodore C. Livingston intended to be named in said deed as joint grantees, but that said intestate’s name was omitted from said deed by mistake; that from about February, A. D. 1879, to February, A. D. 1882, the family of said intestate consisted of plaintiff Helen Livingston and her husband, Benjamin F. Livingston, Sr., the intestate, Thomas S. Liv[172]*172ingston, and the defendant Theodore C. Livingston and his two minor children, Harry T. and Albert Livingston; that said family lived during all of said period upon the premises above described; that as soon as the fact of the omission of the name of said Thomas S. Livingston from the deed of the said city of Omaha to said Theodore 0. Livingston was known to him, the said defendant Theodore C. Livingston offered and agreed either to convey an undivided half interest in said premises to said intestate, or to convey the said premises to the mother of said intestate, said Helen Livingston, to be held in trust by her so long as she should remain upon said premises as a member of said family; that said latter offer was accepted, and said premises were so conveyed to said Plelen Livingston by a quitclaim deed, dated January 15, A. D. 1880, and duly recorded in the office of the county clerk of Douglas county, Nebraska, on the 17th day of January, A. D. 1880, in book 30 of deeds, at page 14; that both the said intestate and said Theodore C. Livingston joined in said deed as grantors, and that said deed was without consideration; that for some years prior to said 15th. day of January, A. D. 1880, to February, 1882, said Helen Livingston continued to reside upon said premises as a member of said family, during all of which time said Thomas S. and Theodore C. Livingston continued jointly to furnish all the means for the support of said family and all the members thereof, including the said plaintiff Helen Livingston; that means to pay all taxes, insurance, and to make all repairs and improvements on said premises during all this period and during all the time since the purchase of said premises from said city of Omaha as aforesaid, up to the time of the death of said intestate, were supplied and furnished wholly by said Thomas S. and Theodore C. Livingston jointly and in equal shares; that in the month of February, A. D. 1882, said Helen Livingston and her said husband removed from said premises to the territory of Dakota, and that at the time, or soon [173]*173thereafter, said Theodore C. and Thomas S. Livingston both requested her to reconvey said premises to them, but that she at first refused, and was only induced to do so after repeated and very urgent demands; that said Helen Livingston was never seized of said premises; that she simply held the same for a time in trust for said Thomas S. and Theoodore C. Livingston, who jointly furnished all the money, and money aggregating a large amount to purchase, improve, and maintain the same; that said Helen Livingston did not and could not convey them as a gift to any one; that she never contributed money or means of any kind or in any amount to the purchase, improvement, or maintenance thereof, and that for all purposes the interest of said intestate in the premises was acquired by purchase and not by gift.”

The plaintiffs in their reply deny that the premises were purchased jointly by their intestate and Theodore C. Livingston,, and deny that the consideration was paid jointly by them. They also deny “ that the taxes, insurance, repairs, and improvements on said premises ” were paid for or provided by said Thomas S. and Theodore C. Livingston. They admit that “from about July, 1877, to February, 1882, the family of said intestate consisted of the persons in the eleventh paragraph of plaintiffs’ petition named, and that said family lived during said time upon the premises in controversy, but deny all the other allegations of the petition.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 N.W. 233, 29 Neb. 167, 1890 Neb. LEXIS 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/livingston-v-livingston-neb-1890.