Davis v. Stith

• Decision Date: 08 June 1889
• Citation: 11 S.W. 810
• Parties: DAVIS v. STITH et al.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

11 S.W. 810

DAVIS v. STITH et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 8, 1889

Appeal from circuit court, Hardin county; T. R. MCBEATH, Judge.

"Not to be officially reported."

This was a suit by Allen Davis against R. L. Stith and Floyd Davis, wherein plaintiff alleged that in 1886 he had by deed conveyed to defendants certain land, because he was harassed with debts at the time, and because defendants, who are his brother and his attorney, advised him to convey his property to them in trust, to pay first his debts and then the residue to plaintiff. Plaintiff also claimed that Stith had so written said deed as to convey to defendants an absolute estate in said property, and he sought to reform said deed and to recover of defendants the sum they had made from the sale of said land after paying all of plaintiff's debts. Defendants denied the agreement for the purchase as stated by plaintiff, but claimed that they had received said land agreeing to pay plaintiff's debts therefor, and in addition executing their notes to plaintiff as a further consideration for his conveyance. Judgment for defendants and plaintiff appeals.

J. P Hobson, for appellant.

S. H Bush, for appellees.

PRYOR J.

The appellant in this case, after the payment of his debts and after the appellees had realized something from their purchase seems to have imagined that his brother and confidential attorney were rendering gratuitous services to relieve him from his pecuniary embarrassment. An execution had been levied on his land, the mortgage upon it was about to be foreclosed, and his brother and the appellee Stith offered him more for the land than it could have been sold for, and in closing the trade by agreeing to pay these debts conferred upon him a kindness, instead of defrauding him out of what he had. It is plain that this idea of the voluntary services to be rendered by the appellees in order to relieve the appellant from debt was after they had divided his land into lots, cut and cleaned it of briars, (that he should have done,) and placed it in a condition that enabled them to make something out of their purchase. There was nothing in the relation of attorney and client in this case that prevented Stith from purchasing, and no chancellor ought to impute fraud to the brother and the attorney for doing that which was an act of kindness to the appellant, although it may finally have resulted in benefit to them. ...