Alker v. Alker
| Decision Date | 06 June 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 1207.,1207. |
| Citation | 172 A. 887 |
| Parties | ALKER v. ALKER. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Philip C. Joslin, Judge.
Bill of complaint by James Alker against William A. Alker. From the decree, respondent appeals.
Reversed and remanded, with direction to dismiss the bill of complaint.
Hogan & Hogan and Mary C. Hogan, all of Providence, for complainant.
John F. O'Connell, of Providence, for respondent,
This is a bill in equity to set aside a deed to the respondent from Elizabeth Patterson, now deceased. In the superior court a decree was entered which declared that the said deed was null and void and that respondent acquired no present or future right in the real estate purported to be conveyed thereby. The cause is here on respondent's appeal.
The parties are the heirs at law of said Elizabeth Patterson. The complainant was her brother and the respondent, her nephew. Respondent was left an orphan when he was about six years of age and was sent to a home for orphaned children. When he was about twelve years old his aunt, Elizabeth Patterson, who was childless, took him into her own home, sent him to school, and treated him as her own son. When he was able to work he found employment and turned his earnings over to his aunt. This relation continued until respondent married.
In 1930 Mrs. Patterson made a will in which respondent was made sole beneficiary. On November 19, 1931, she executed a deed conveying her real estate to respondent. The sole question presented by the record is whether there was a valid delivery. The attorney who drew the deed and took the grantor's acknowledgment testified in effect that Mrs. Patterson came to his office with the respondent; that he told her that in order to make a good delivery she must deliver the property over; and that she handed the deed to the respondent without any reservation, except that he should not record it until after her death. He further testified that he warned Mrs. Patterson that respondent could record the deed notwithstanding her direction to the contrary, and she replied: "He is my boy, I brought him up."
The trial justice based his decision on the testimony of the respondent, who was called as a witness by complainant. While the respondent denied that there was any agreement between himself and his aunt with respect to the property conveyed, or any condition attached to the delivery of the deed— except as to the recording—he testified that the property was his aunt's until her death. The court questioned the respondent as follows:
Respondent further testified that he was told that the deed was not to be recorded until after his aunt's death and that she never had the deed in her possession after she delivered it to him. It is evident that the respondent was confused...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Countrywide Bank, N.A. v. Donahue
...delivered the deed to the grantee, but instructed that the deed should not be recorded until after the grantor's death. 54 R.I. 326, 172 A. 887, 888 (1934). The Court reasoned that although "[the grantor] intended to collect and use the rents of the property during her lifetime, . . . she a......
-
Countrywide Bank, N.A. v. Donahue
...the rents of the property during her lifetime, . . . she actually delivered the deed to the respondent and never again had it in her custody." Id.; see also Rowan Betagh, 83 R.I. 5, 7, 111 A.2d 841, 842 (1955). Here, the factual circumstances of the present suit are distinguishable from the......
-
Parrillo v. Siravo
...to a third person was with the intention that it should not be turned over to the grantee until the grantor's death; in Alker v. Alker, 54 R.I. 326, 172 A. 887, and Rowan v. Betagh, 83 R.I. 5, 111 A.2d 841, that the delivery directly to the grantee was conditional upon the deed not being re......
-
Rowan v. Betagh, 2335
...As to the law applicable to such facts, we think the trial justice did not err. In some respects the case resembles Alker v. Alker, 54 R.I. 326, 172 A. 887, except that the facts here make out a stronger case as to delivery and an intention on the part of the grantor to divest himself compl......