Jefferson v. Hopson Bros.

• Citation: 84 S.W. 540
• Parties: JEFFERSON et al. v. HOPSON BROS.
• Decision Date: 24 January 1905
• Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky

84 S.W. 540

JEFFERSON et al. v. HOPSON BROS.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

January 24, 1905

Appeal from Circuit Court, Trigg County.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by Hopson Bros. against W. H. Jefferson and another. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

John C Dabney and R. A. Burnett, for appellants.

Sims &amp Thomas, for appellees.

NUNN J.

Appellants are husband and wife. About the 1st day of December, 1900 the husband purchased from one Glover four acres of land, at $100 per acre, and caused the conveyance to be made to himself. On the 27th day of the same month he surrendered to Glover the deed, it having not been recorded, and caused Glover to make a deed to his wife; claiming at the time as testified by him that the money used in paying for the land belonged to her, and it was the intention in the beginning to have the conveyance made to her, but by oversight he suffered the deed to himself. Between the dates of these deeds the husband entered into a contract with one Hamby, whereby Hamby agreed to furnish the material and erect a dwelling house upon this property at the price of $1,100. Under a contract with Hamby, the appellees furnished material in the erection of this house to the value of $149. Appellees took the necessary steps to perfect a lien on the property, and instituted this action to enforce it. Appellants answered that they did not contract for this lumber, and were not responsible therefor; that appellant's husband had paid more for the erection of this house than he had contracted to pay, and the property belonged to the wife, and she had not signed any written contract or made any contract of any character for the improvement of her property.

It appears that there was proof introduced by both parties upon the question as to whether or not the change of title to his property from the husband to the wife was fraudulent. Under recent decisions of this court, this question is not material, in respect to the liability of this property for the payment of the claim in suit. In the case of Tarr &amp Templin, etc., v. Muir, etc., 107 Ky. 283, 53 S.W. 663, and Johnson, etc., v. Bush & Curran, etc., 64 S.W. 628, 65 S.W. 158, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 1399, it was decided that section 2128 of the Kentucky Statutes of 1903 had the effect to repeal that part of section 2479 which required a written contract, signed by a married woman, before her...