Hayden v. Easter

• Decision Date: 18 January 1894
• Citation: 24 S.W. 626
• Parties: HAYDEN et al. v. EASTER et al.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

24 S.W. 626

HAYDEN et al. v. EASTER et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

January 18, 1894

Appeal from circuit court, Hardin county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by Mary R. Easter and Sallie Easter against Letitia Hayden and others to recover certain real estate. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Hobson & O'Meara and D. C. Haycraft, for appellants.

H. T Kendall, for appellees.

HAZELRIGG J.

On the 23d day of March, 1886, Jacob Hayden, then temporarily in Frankfort, Ky. executed the paper in controversy, which purports to convey a tract of some 30 acres of land in Hardin county to Sallie Easter, whom he recognized as his natural daughter. He delivered the conveyance to his friend, Kendall to be kept by him until the grantor's death, when it was to be put to record in the proper office for the benefit of the grantee; and Kendall was enjoined, also, to see that the reputed daughter and grantee got the land so conveyed. The circumstances show, reasonably clearly, that the mother of the daughter, who was given a right of occupancy in the land was notified of the conveyance at the time it was executed. Upon the death of the grantor, which occurred in September, 1891, Kendall produced the deed to the clerk of the Hardin county court, and had it recorded, in obedience to the request made to him when the instrument was first executed. In doing this, he acted in behalf of the daughter, then a minor; and, the representatives of the grantor refusing to give up the land, she and her mother instituted this action for it. The judgment below gave it to them.

It is insisted that Kendall was not a competent witness for the appellees, because he was interested in the recovery; and the only interest which he is supposed to have is his fee as attorney in bringing the suit, for which he is supposed to have a lien on the land, if it be finally recovered. There is no proof showing that he has any interest, and if the law does give a lien for a reasonable fee, and secure it by a lien on what is recovered, we know of no rule of evidence which renders him an incompetent witness.

It appears that the grantor, after the execution of the deed sold and conveyed some 10 or 12 acres of the land to another; and this circumstance, it is thought, shows that he retained control and dominion over the deed during his life, for which reason, it is insisted, the grantor did not intend to...