
    Fitzpatrick, Appellant, vs. Yache and wife, Respondents.
    
      March 23
    
    April 13, 1915.
    
    
      Vendor and purchaser of land: Purchase-money lien: Evidence: Burden of proof.
    
    
      1. In an action to establish, and foreclose a purchase-money lien on land held by defendant under an apparently clear title, the . burden is upon the plaintiff to show that the land is subject to such lien.
    2. Findings of fact in such a case in favor of the defendant are held to be supported by the evidence.
    Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Winnebago county: Geo. W. B-ueNell, Circuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    Action to establish and foreclose a purchase-money lien on a faxm of fifty-three acres. The plaintiff, a widower eighty-one years of age, deeded the farm (his homestead) to the defendant Louis (his son-in-law) July 5, 1913, by warranty deed which expressed a consideration of $4,300, and by the-terms of which a life estate was reserved to the plaintiff. No money was in fact paid nor was- any note or mortgage given. The plaintiff claims that the arrangement was that Louis should pay $500 on the purchase price in the fall and then that a mortgage should be given for the balance. The defendants claim that it was a gift. The action was tried by the court and findings made to the effect that the only consideration for the deed was love and affection and the agreement that the defendant Louis would rent the premises of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff should live and have a home with the defendants; that the value of the farm at the time did not exceed $70 an acre or $3,710 in the aggregate; that the defendants moved on to the farm in 1913 as tenants of the plaintiff and plaintiff lived with them until the commencement of this action; that the defendants have in all things fully carried out their agreement with the plaintiff and have paid the taxes and insurance on the buildings since the conveyance; that in February or March, 1914, trouble arose between tbe parties as to tbe amount of rent defendants were to pay, and thereafter this action was begun. In a written opinion tbe trial judge, after reviewing at length the testimony, concludes, in view of tbe fact that tbe burden of proof was on tbe plaintiff to prove that there was an oral agreement to pay in tbe future tbe sum named as tbe consideration in tbe deed, that tbe plaintiff bad failed to discharge that burden and in fact that tbe circumstances favored tbe defendants’ version. From judgment dismissing tbe complaint tbe plaintiff appeals.
    For tbe appellant there was a brief by Thompson, Thompson & Jackson, and oral argument by J. C. Thompson.
    
    For tbe respondents there was a brief by Frank B. Keefe, attorney, and Charles and Ilenry Barber, of counsel, and oral argument by Mr. Keefe.
    
   ■WxNslow, C. J.

In this ease it is held:

1. Tbe burden is upon tbe plaintiff to show that land held by defendant under an apparently clear title is subject to a purchase-money lien in plaintiff’s favor.

2. Tbe findings of fact of tbe trial court in this case are well supported by tbe evidence.

There are no other substantial questions in tbe case.-

By the Gowrt. — Judgment affirmed.  