In re Estate of Groome
Before: Belcher
Synopsis
Homestead Claim—Void Contract for Benefit of Partnership — Illegality. •—■ An agreement to file a homestead claim upon public land under the laws of the United States, and to obtain title thereto for the benefit of a partnership to which the applicant belongs, is in contravention of the spirit and policy of the law, and is illegal and void.
Id. — Parol Trust — Title of Partnership — Settlement of Accounts. — A parol agreement by such applicant, after having acquired the title to the homestead upon a settlement of his accounts with the partnership, “that the land belonged to the partnership,” does not create any trust, or vest in his partners any estate in the land.
Id. — Apparent Title of Decedent — Setting apart of Probate Homestead — Question of Adverse Ownership. — Where a homestead claimant had obtained a United States patent to the land in his own name, giving him the apparent title, and was residing upon it with his family at the time of his death, and it was inventoried and appraised as a part of his estate, the question of adverse ownership of the land by a partnership of which decedent was a member cannot be considered in a proceeding by the widow in the probate court to have the property selected, designated, and set apart as a home for the use of herself and minor child.
Belcher, C. In July, 1886, Thomas B. Groome, under the homestead laws of the United States, filed a homestead claim upon 160 acres of public land in San Luis Obispo County. At the time of filing his claim, he was living on the land filed upon with his family, and continued to do so thereafter till he died. In 1887, he commuted his homestead, and paid the government for the land, and in December, 1890, a government patent [70]therefor was issued and delivered in his name. In May, 1890, he died intestate, leaving surviving him his widow, Julia Groome, and one daughter, then sixteen years of age. In August, 1890, letters of administration upon his estate were duly issued to his widow, who qualified and entered upon the discharge of her duties. In December, 1890, appraisers of the estate were duly appointed, and in May, 1891, an inventory and appraisement of all the property of the estate were made and returned to the court. This inventory ^included the 160 acres of land above mentioned, and the tract was appraised at the sum of eight hundred dollars, its then cash value. During his lifetime no homestead was ever selected by the decedent or his wife under the laws of this state. On May 29, 1891, the widow presented and filed in court her petition, alleging that at the time of his death her deceased husband was the owner of the said 160 acres of land, and that the same was then community property of herself and husband, and praying that the court make an order selecting, designating, and setting apart the said real property as a.home for the u$e of herself and minor daughter.
To this petition one L. T. Almstead filed written opposition, and alleged therein “ that the real property described in said petition was owned by and belonged to said deceased, this opponent, and one John Mintern, who were partners at the time said decedent died; that the same was and is now partnership property; .... that said decedent only had a five-sixteenths interest in said partnership ”; wherefore he prayed that the prayer of the petition be not granted.
When the petition came on to be heard, the petitioner introduced her proofs, including the United States patent to her deceased husband, dated December 29, 1890, and rested. Almstead was then allowed, against the objection of petitioner, to testify as follows: —
“ I know the land described in the petition in this proceeding. In the year 1884 it was public land of the United States. It was claimed by the Atlantic and Pa[71]
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)