Gardner v. Knight

• Decision Date: 29 November 1899
• Parties: GARDNER v. KNIGHT ET AL. [1]
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

27 So. 298

124 Ala. 273

GARDNER v. KNIGHT ET AL. ^[1]

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 29, 1899

Appeal from chancery court, Tallapoosa county; Richard B. Kelly Chancellor.

Bill by W. A. Gardner, revived in the name of W. L. Gardner administrator, against Lucy Knight and another. Decree for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

T. S Bulger, J. W. Strather, and J. M. Chilton, for appellant.

Garrett & Lackey, for appellees.

McCLELLAN C.J.

In 1895 W. A. Gardner owned and resided upon certain 40 acres of land. He owned no other land, and his personal property was of inconsiderable value. He was 85 years of age, nearly blind, and so feeble and decrepit as to be unable to earn a sustenance, or even to take proper care of his person. Lucy Knight was his daughter, and J. C. Knight was her husband. They lived near by, on 80 acres of land, which W. A. Gardner had owned, but which he had the previous year conveyed to them severally,-40 acres to Lucy in consideration of love and affection, and 40 to J. C. Knight upon a valuable consideration. On January 3, 1895, said Gardner executed a warranty deed covering his 40 remaining acres to Lucy Knight, wherein was the following recital of consideration: "The sum of five dollars to me in hand paid by J. C. Knight, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged; and, further, for the love and affection I bear my daughter, Lucy Knight, wife of the said J. C. Knight; and, further, in consideration that the said J. C. Knight is to furnish me, the said W. A. Gardner, with necessary food and clothing to render me comfortable during my life, suitable to my station, and, further, to furnish me all necessary attention in sickness, medicine, medical aid, and medicine; and, further, that the said J. C. Knight is to cover one room of the house on the premises hereinafter to be granted, and also to build a buggy house, 12x14 feet, on said premises, and to build another house, 18x18 feet; also, to build certain fences on the premises owned by said Knight." In this deed the grantor reserved to himself the possession of the premises during his life. In connection with this conveyance, and upon the same paper, J. C. Knight executed to Gardner the following instrument: "Know all men by these presents, that I, Jesse C. Knight, having read over the above conveyance and deed, and fully understanding the nature and requirements of the same, I do hereby consent to the same, and assume all the obligations therein required of me, and accept the conditions therein expressed, and agree to carry out the same in good faith." On August 27, 1897, W. A. Gardner filed the present bill to cancel and annul said deed to his daughter, and to revest the title in himself. The grounds upon which this relief is sought are that the only consideration for the deed was the undertaking of J. C. Knight to provide for the sustenance and support of the grantor, and to make the specified repairs and improvements upon the property, and the total failure of performance of that undertaking by both Knight and his said wife. It is averred in the bill that the consideration was in no part constituted of the grantor's love and affection for his daughter, nor of the payment of five dollars by J. C. Knight, and that the recital of these elements of consideration was embraced in the deed through a mistake of the draftsman. To show fraud on the part of J. C. and Lucy Knight, it is averred in the bill that at the time the conveyance was executed they knew that Mr. Gardner "was very old, infirm, and feeble, both in body and mind, and, knowing these facts, they procured the said Gardner to execute said conveyance by representing to him that they would provide and care for him, which was worth largely more than the property conveyed, when at the same time they knew the same to be a misrepresentation"; and, further, "that W. A. Gardner was not only very old, infirm, and enfeebled, but that he was destitute of means of support, and was unable to wait upon and take care of himself, and that said Knight and wife, being fully aware of these facts, took advantage of the same, and procured said W. A. Gardner to execute said deed without any consideration for the same." Such is the case made by the bill. Its special prayer was, as we have seen, for a cancellation of the conveyance of W. A. Gardner to Lucy Knight, and the revestiture of title in the former. There was also a general prayer for relief. The complainant, W. A. Gardner, having died before the decree now appealed from, the cause was revived in the name of his administrator, W. L. Gardner. The case was submitted on motion to dismiss the bill for want of equity, and on demurrer to the bill. Both the motion and the demurrer were sustained by the chancellor, and from that decree this appeal is prosecuted.

On the averments of the bill, the case is to be treated, for all the purposes of this appeal, as if the only consideration for the deed in question,...