Bevan v. Brooks

• Citation: 115 A. 923
• Decision Date: 10 February 1922
• Docket Number: No. 514.,514.
• Parties: BEVAN v. BROOKS.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island

115 A. 923

BEVAN

v. BROOKS.

No. 514.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Feb. 10, 1922.

Appeal from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Chester W. Barrows, Judge.

Suit by Ernest E. Bevan against Annie F. Brooks. From decree for complainant, respondent appeals. Affirmed and remanded for further proceedings.

Joseph C. Cawley, of Providence, for appellant.

Tillinghast & Collins and McGovern & Slattery, all of Providence, for appellee.

PER CURIAM. This is a bill in equity wherein the complainant seeks to have a warranty deed, given by him to the respondent, declared to be a mortgage, with the privilege of redeeming it upon payment of the money loaned to him by the respondent. After a hearing upon bill, answer, and proof by a justice of the superior court, a final decree was entered, granting the relief prayed for.

The respondent has duly prosecuted her appeal from said decree to this court, and now claims that said decree is against the law and the evidence and the weight thereof.

It appears from the evidence that, October 24, 1919, Mrs. Charlotte M. Brown conveyed to the complainant, by warranty deed, the house and lot in dispute. The property was sold for $7,275, and the complainant paid for the same by giving a purchase-price mortgage to Mrs. Brown for $5,500 and paying her the balance in cash out of $2,000 received by him from the respondent. On the same day the complainant conveyed said property to the respondent by warranty deed, stating in the deed that the conveyance was made subject to a mortgage for $5,500.

The testimony proves that the complainant married the daughter of the respondent in January, 1914, and that from this time, until she sold her house on Smithfield avenue in October, 1919, he and his wife lived with her. The complainant is a real estate broker, and sold the respondent's house for her. For several years he had acted as agent for Mrs. Brown, and knew that her real estate was for sale. After the sale of the Smithfield avenue house, the complainant asked the respondent to buy Mrs. Brown's property, but she declined to do so, and asked him why he did not buy it, and he replied that he did not have the money. After further discussion, the respondent agreed to let the complainant have $2,000 with which to purchase the Brown property, with the understanding that the deed of the same was to be in his name, and that her daughter was to take charge of the rents and pay the expenses connected with the property. Upon the purchase of the Brown property, the...