Berry v. Berry
| Decision Date | 04 March 1919 |
| Citation | 209 S.W. 855,183 Ky. 481 |
| Parties | BERRY v. BERRY ET AL. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Daviess County.
Suit by Edward C. Berry and others against John H. Berry and others. From the judgment rendered, Henry S. Berry appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
W. P Sandidge and R. W. Slack, both of Owensboro, for appellant.
Ben D Ringo and Le Vega Clements, both of Owensboro, for appellees.
Sallie A. Berry lived on a farm just west of the city of Owensboro. Her husband died in the year 1877, and left surviving him seven children, John H. Berry, Henry S. Berry, Edward C Berry, George B. Berry, Lide Berry, Rowena Berry, and Nannie Berry. Lide died before reaching her majority. John H. Berry worked on the farm for a while, and then moved out West. The other children, with the exception of Henry, lived on the farm for some time, and then settled in the neighborhood. Henry became 21 in the year 1884, and managed the farm for his mother until June, 1901. During that time he managed the farm very profitably, and helped to bring up and educate the other children. The proceeds from the farm were deposited to the credit of his mother, and he received nothing for his services except his board and clothes. In the year 1901 his mother approached him and asked him what he wanted for his services. He said to her
On the same day, his mother and Ed consulted about the matter, and stated to him that his mother had made a will giving him his sister Lide's share of the estate as compensation for his 17 years of work. On the same day, his mother made a will carrying out this agreement. During the same year, Henry made a contract with his mother, by which he was to occupy the farm with her and pay her $1,000 a year and her support. This arrangement was continued until his mother's death. Shortly before her death, he made a settlement with her covering the period from January 1, 1902, until January 1, 1913. During this time, Henry paid out for his mother, for own use and as advancements from her to some of the children, more than $16,000. Charging himself with the rent during this period and the personal property on the farm when he took charge, there was left due him the sum of $3,063.98. His claim for this amount was subsequently filed in this action and allowed. His mother died in the year 1914. Shortly before her death, she revoked the will made in the year 1901, giving to Henry his sister Lide's part of the estate, and made a new will, leaving out this provision and devising the property to all her children. By this last will, which was duly probated, Edward C. Berry and Henry S. Berry were appointed executors and duly qualified. Shortly thereafter Henry S. Berry tendered his resignation, which was duly accepted by the Daviess county court.
This suit was brought by Edward C. Berry, as executor and in his own right, and Nannie Berry and George B. Berry, against John H. Berry, Henry S. Berry, and the other children for a settlement of the estate. After the will was probated, Henry S. Berry made out a claim against his mother's estate for $10,000, for services rendered by him in the management of the farm from 1884 until 1901. The first discussion of this claim took place in the presence of all the children, and John and the others insisted that they would stand by the will. After that, overtures for compromise were made and after considerable discussion a written agreement was executed, by which John H. Berry agreed to pay the sum of $700, Nannie Berry the sum of $1,300, George B. Berry the sum of $1,333.33, and Edward C. Berry the sum of $1,333.33, in settlement of Henry's claim against his mother's estate. It was further agreed that these sums should be paid by the executor out of the estate. In his answer to the settlement suit, Henry S. Berry pleaded the foregoing agreement, and asked judgment against his brothers and sister for the foregoing amounts, and that the executor be required to pay the amounts out of the estate. Nannie Berry and Edward Berry made no defense, but John H....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forsythe v. Rexroat
... ... men at the time may have entertained substantial doubt. Such ... rule was reiterated in Berry v. Berry, 183 Ky. 481, ... 209 S.W. 855, but with the additional declaration that it is ... immaterial that the parties settled the controversy ... ...
-
Forsythe v. Rexroat
...must be one about which reasonable men at the time may have entertained substantial doubt. Such rule was reiterated in Berry v. Berry, 183 Ky. 481, 209 S.W. 855, but with the additional declaration that it is immaterial that the parties settled the controversy other than the law would have ......
-
Awotin v. Abrams, Gen. No. 41463.
...faith the forbearance to further litigate would have constituted a valid consideration. Pyle v. Murphy, 180 Ill.App. 18;Berry v. Berry, 183 Ky. 481, 209 S.W. 855-857. However, the compensation to be paid defendants under the contract was in part contingent in its nature. Defendants had a fi......
-
Posey v. Lambert-Grisham Hardware Co.
...disputed, or where it is in settlement of a claim which is doubtful. 8 Cyc. 505, 506, and note on page 507. In the case of Berry v. Berry, 183 Ky. 482, 209 S.W. 855, we held that, where there is a question between the about which reasonable men may differ as to the outcome, the parties may ......