Greiner v. Greiner
| Decision Date | 06 December 1930 |
| Docket Number | 29,530 |
| Citation | 293 P. 759,131 Kan. 760 |
| Parties | MAGGIE GREINER, Appellant, v. FRANK GREINER, Appellee |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1930.
Appeal from Mitchell district court; WILLIAM R. MITCHELL, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
CONTRACTS--Sufficiency of Promise to Give Land--Evidence. The proceedings considered in an action to require a deed of land to be executed pursuant to a promise to give land which was fully performed to the point of assuring title, and held, a judgment requiring execution of a deed was sustained by sufficient evidence.
C. A. Walsh, Jr., of Concordia, for the appellant.
R. L. Hamilton, of Beloit, for the appellee.
Maggie Greiner commenced an action of forcible detention against her son, Frank Greiner, to recover possession of a quarter section of land, and an additional tract of eighty acres. Frank answered that his mother had given him the eighty-acre tract under such circumstances that she not only could not reclaim it, but that she should execute a conveyance to him. The district court ordered plaintiff to execute a deed conveying the eighty-acre tract to defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Peter Greiner died testate, leaving a widow--the plaintiff--and sons and daughters. His sons Henry, Frank and Nicholas, and his daughter Kate, were disinherited--were given five dollars apiece. Henry died in June, 1925, unmarried and intestate, and his mother inherited considerable property from him. She then concluded to place the other two disinherited sons on an equal footing with those who had been favored in the will, and she took active measures to accomplish her purpose. At first she intended to give Frank and Nicholas land, about ninety acres apiece. Later, she entered into a written contract to pay Nicholas $ 2,000. Frank had gone to Logan county, had homesteaded a quarter section of land, and had lived there sixteen or seventeen years. Mrs. Greiner lived in Mitchell county, and the land in controversy lies in Mitchell county, not far from her home. The brief for plaintiffs says she inherited from Henry only a three-sevenths interest in the eighty-acre tract. The brief for defendant says she inherited the entire interest, and Mrs. Greiner so testified. In any event, some deeds were to be executed, and in July, 1926, Mrs. Greiner had Nicholas write to Frank and tell Frank to come down, she was going to make settlement with him and Nicholas. Frank came to Mitchell county and had a conversation with his mother. At that time there was a house on the quarter section. In the conversation Mrs. Greiner told Frank she was going to pay him and Nicholas. Frank told her he did not want money, he wanted a home--a little land for a home. She said all right, she had the land, and she wanted him to move into the house, and they would divide up later. He said that would be all right, and he would move back.
Frank went home, but it seems there was an obstacle to his moving. Louis Greiner, one of the sons favored in the will, testified as follows:
It appears the mortgage was assigned to Mrs. Greiner, and Frank subsequently paid her.
A. Diebolt, cashier of the Home State Bank of Tipton, prepared the contract between Mrs. Greiner and Nicholas. He testified as follows:
Referring to an incident occurring in the fall of 1926, Louis testified as follows:
Frank moved back on September 20, 1926. Mrs. Greiner then determined to move the house from the quarter section to the eighty-acre tract, and give that specific tract to Frank. Frank testified as follows:
Albert Greiner, a son favored in the will, testified as follows:
Flora Greiner, wife of William Greiner, a son favored in the will, testified as follows:
The buildings were moved from the quarter section to the eighty-acre tract, and Frank commenced to occupy the eighty-acre tract in the spring of 1927. Mrs. Greiner testified as follows:
The manner of assuring title to Frank came up. At first a will was contemplated. Louis Greiner testified as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bouton v. Byers
...relationship. Berryman v. Kmoch, 221 Kan. 304, 307, 559 P.2d 790 (1977); see Mohr, 244 Kan. at 574–75, 770 P.2d 466;Greiner v. Greiner, 131 Kan. 760, 765, 293 P. 759 (1930). To the extent the promisee relies on equity to specifically enforce the promise or recover damages equivalent to the ......
-
Shirk's Estate, In re
...was a legal consideration to support the grandmother's promise to give the mother a one-third share of her estate (Greiner v. Greiner, 131 Kan. 760, 765, 293 P. 759; Zachos v. Citizens & Southern National Bank, 213 Ga. 619, 624, 100 S.E.2d 418; Restantement of the Law, Contracts, § 90, p. 1......
-
In re Henry's Estate
... ... Myers, ... 97 Kan. 727, 156 P. 751; Taylor v. Holyfield, 104 ... Kan. 587, 180 P. 208; Lyons v. Lyons, 114 Kan. 514, ... 220 P. 294; Greiner v. Greiner, 131 Kan. 760, 293 P ... In most ... of the cited cases sounding in equity, where specific ... performance of contracts ... ...
-
Decatur County Feed Yard, Inc. v. Fahey
...a substitute for consideration, which allowed a court to enforce an otherwise unenforceable promise. For example, in Greiner v. Greiner, 131 Kan. 760, 293 P. 759 (1930), the court enforced a mother's promise to provide one of her sons with a parcel of land even though there was no considera......