Wilson v. Cole

STURTEVANT, J.

The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant to obtain a judgment declaring that the defendant held the title of the plaintiff in trust as to an undivided one-half interest in certain property located in the city of San Diego. The defendant appeared and answered and a trial was had before the court sitting without a jury. The trial court made findings in favor of the plaintiff and from a judgment entered thereon the defendant has appealed under section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Edwin and Mary E. James were husband and wife. Down to the date of the death of Mr. James they resided at Guatemala. To them were born two daughters, Mary M., who afterward married and is now Mrs. Mary M. Wilson, the plaintiff in this case. The other daughter, Rosalie, afterward married and she is the defendant Rosalie James Cole. At the time Mr. James died he had accumulated and was the owner of certain parcels of real estate in Guatemala, and other parcels in New Orleans. He left a will by the terms of which one-half of his estate went to his widow and one-quarter thereof to each of his daughters. At first the management of the properties rested with the widow. Her management was unsatisfactory and family disputes arose. At this time she had already acquired the real estate located at San Diego. In the interest of harmony the title was transferred to the Southern Title Guaranty Company to hold

[731]

the title for the widow and her two daughters. That arrangement existed until July 9, 1909. On that date the widow and her daughter Mary signed a document directing the Southern Title Guaranty Company to convey the entire title to the defendant. The title company did so on December 14, 1909. This action was commenced on August 23, 1922. The theory of the plaintiff’s case is that the transfer made on December 14, 1909, was but one step in the transaction, and that the entire arrangement was to the effect that the mother, having remarried, and having gone to reside at Seattle, was willing to waive all of her claims in favor of her two daughters and that it was agreed among the three, the widow and the two daughters, that the title should be taken by the defendant and that she would hold the title for herself and. her sister share and share alike. Whereas it was the contention of the defendant that the transfer was made to her as settlement in full for all of her claims arising out of the estate of her father and that her sister, the plaintiff, was to be compensated, and at that time was willing to take the chances of being compensated, out of certain moneys which the heirs expected to collect from sales of properties in Guatemala.