7 P. 584 (Kan. 1885), Gribben v. Maxwell

Citation:7 P. 584, 34 Kan. 8
Opinion Judge:HORTON, C. J.:
Party Name:NOAH GRIBBEN, as Guardian of Olive E. Gribben, v. SAMUEL E. MAXWELL
Attorney:Hackney & Asp, for plaintiff in error. A. J. Pyburn, for defendant in error.
Judge Panel:HORTON, C. J. Cole, J., dissenting.
Case Date:July 09, 1885
Court:Supreme Court of Kansas
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 584

7 P. 584 (Kan. 1885)

34 Kan. 8

NOAH GRIBBEN, as Guardian of Olive E. Gribben,

v.

SAMUEL E. MAXWELL

Supreme Court of Kansas

July 9, 1885

Error from Cowley District Court.

ACTION brought December 7, 1883, by Noah Gribben, as guardian of Olive E. Gribben, a lunatic, against Samuel E. Maxwell, to set aside a conveyance executed by Olive E. Gribben on June 11, 1883. The petition, among other things, alleged that on June 11, 1883, the said Olive E. Gribben, being a lunatic, made, executed, acknowledged and delivered to the defendant a quitclaim deed for three-sevenths interest of the east half of the northeast quarter of section 15, and the south half of the northwest quarter of section 14, all in township No. 34 south, of range 4 east, in Cowley county, in this state. The defendant filed an answer, the second defense of which was as follows:

"That he purchased of the said Olive E. Gribben the lands described in said petition in good faith; that he paid to the said Olive E. Gribben for said lands the sum of three hundred and fifty dollars, lawful money of the United States; that the said sum of money paid for said lands as aforesaid, was a fair and reasonable price for the same at the time said purchase was made; that the said defendant had no knowledge or information of the lunacy of the said Olive E. Gribben; that at the said time and before, there was nothing in the looks or conduct of the said Olive E. Gribben to indicate she was of unsound mind, or incapable of the transaction of business; but on the contrary, at the time of said purchase and for a long time prior thereto, the said Olive E. Gribben was apparently in possession of her full mental faculties, and was then and had been for a long time prior thereto, engaged in the transaction of business for herself.

"Wherefore, the said defendant prays the said petition of the said plaintiff be dismissed, and that the title of the said defendant in and to the said lands be quieted against the claims of the said Olive E. Gribben, and all persons claiming or to claim under, through or by her, and for such other and further relief as to the court may seem equitable."

To the second defense of the answer the plaintiff filed a demurrer, upon the ground that it was insufficient in law to constitute any defense whatever. At the May Term, 1884, the demurrer was overruled. The plaintiff excepted, and brings the case...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP