Brady v. Gray

• Decision Date: 21 June 1895
• Citation: 31 S.W. 734
• Parties: BRADY et al. v. GRAY et al.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

31 S.W. 734

BRADY et al. v. GRAY et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 21, 1895

Appeal from circuit court, Carlisle county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by F. H. Gray and another against S. A. Brady and others for the recovery of land. From a judgment for plaintiffs defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Z. W Bugg and R. J. Bugg, for appellants.

John M Nichols, for appellees.

GUFFY J.

This appeal is prosecuted from a judgment of the Carlisle circuit court rendered in the suit of F. H. Gray, etc., against F. H Carrico, etc. It appears that Carrico was the owner of a patent for a washing machine, and that Alexander Gardner, a son of Mrs. Gray by a former marriage, was induced by some of the appellants to purchase an interest in the said patent, and, in payment therefor, appellant Mrs. Gray conveyed to Carrico the land in contest herein, her husband not uniting with her in the deed. It also appears that appellant Brady was the real owner of the patent right in the state of Arkansas, the territory sold to Gardner, etc. The land was conveyed to Brady by Carrico, and by Brady to Peck. The latter has not appealed; hence his claim, if any, will not be considered. Mrs. Gray and her husband instituted suit for the recovery of the land and cancellation of the deed. Appellants answered, and, among other pleas, pleaded an antenuptial contract between Mrs. and Mr. Gray, claiming that the same authorized her to convey the land, and making it her separate estate; also claimed that Gardner had realized much money out of the sale, etc. The action was submitted upon the pleadings, and the court adjudged in favor of the plaintiff Mrs. Gray, and appellants have appealed to this court, and suggest that Mrs. Gray was authorized by the antenuptial contract to convey the land; that she should not in any event have the land restored until compensation be made to appellants for the conveyance of the patent right interest; also call attention to the fact that, before the trial, Mr. Gray had his name stricken from the petition.

We need not determine what effect that might have had if appellants had availed themselves of it by appropriate pleadings or motions. None such being made in the court below, no objections on that account can be heard here. The antenuptial contract does not clearly authorize Mrs. Gray to convey the land in contest, and, if it attempt to do so, it could not repeal the statute of the...