Griffin v. Coffey

• Decision Date: 26 June 1849
• Citation: 48 Ky. 452
• Parties: Griffin and Wife v. Coffey, & c.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

48 Ky. 452

Griffin and Wife v. Coffey, & c.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 26, 1849

Frauds, statute of. Redemption of Lands.

APPEAL FROM THE WAYNE CIRCUIT.

S Williams for appellant.

B & A. Monroe for appellees.

OPINION

SIMPSON JUDGE.

Case stated

UNDER an execution against Griffin, the dower interest of his wife in a house and lot which had belonged to her former husband was sold by the Sheriff and purchased by Gann. The property having been conveyed to Gann by the Sheriff, but being subject to redemption, was conveyed by him to Coffey, who paid him the full amount of his debt against Griffin, not only including the amount bid by him, but also the balance of his debt, for which an execution had issued, and was in the hands of the Sheriff at the time, for the purpose of having it levied upon the equity of redemption in said property. Griffin and wife filed their bill, alleging that Coffey redeemed the property for them, and took a conveyance in his own name, at their request, for his indemnity, until the rents would pay him the sum expended by him to effect the redemption, which they allege had already been done. Coffey denies the trust in his answer, and claims the property as his own.

In our judgment, the evidence, notwithstanding the denial of Coffey in his answer, establishes the fact, that the redemption of the property purchased by Gann under execution, was made by Coffey, at the instance of the complainants, and in trust for them. This conclusion does not rest alone upon the testimony of Penelope Smith, but is sustained and supported by the facts and circumstances, and the testimony of the other witnesses in the case. The redemption was made upon the last day of the time allowed by law. The complainant, Griffin, was actively employed in having it effected; after Coffey acquired the title by the conveyance from Gann, he admitted to the witness, Stone, that Griffin had at one time the right to have redeemed the property It is true, the witness states that he did not know whether the redemption alluded to existed under a contract with Coffey, or was the right which the law gave him. If it had been the latter, however, its existence would not have been referred to as a disputed point; it must, therefore, have been the former that was alluded to. Besides, all the testimony shows that the redemption was not made by Coffey for his own benefit, but for the benefit of the complainant and wife, or the daughter of Mrs. Griffin by a former marriage. Coffey attempts to establish the latter proposition by the testimony, although in his answer, ...