Jones v. Evans
| Decision Date | 21 June 1838 |
| Parties | Jones and Others v. Evans and Others. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY.
Messrs Morehead and Brown for appellants.
Mr Hanson, Mr. Owsley, and Mr. Apperson for appellees.
The appellants, a part of the heirs of Mayberry Evans, deceased filed their bill seeking to obtain a cancelment of a deed purporting to be executed by said Mayberry to his two sons Mayberry Evans, junior, and William Evans, dated the 30th of August, 1823: first--because, as they allege, the grantor, at the time of its execution, was, by reason of old age, infirmity and disease, incapable of making contracts, and was influenced to execute it without a capacity to understand it, by his two sons, the grantees; second--because the undertaking on their part--the consideration of its execution--had never been complied with.
Bill by certain heirs, to set aside a deed by which a father conveyed his farm to two of his sons--upon the grounds that the grantor, at the time of the conveyance, by reason of old age and infirmity, was incapable of making a contract, and a failure by the grantees to furnish the support for their father and his family, which was to constitute a principal part of the consideration:--but held upon the evidence recited, that the contract--not an unfair one--was contemplated and verbally made by the father, when he was fully competent to make it, and was consummated by deed when though much debilitated in body and mind, by disease, he was still capable of an understanding the effect of the deed; and that he had enjoyed the support for himself and family, substantially as contemplated by the contract, during his life--5 or 6 years: the deed is therefore valid, especially as he declined ??ancelling the contract after he was restored to health.
Though, if a deed were made while the grantor was a lunatic, it would require a re-execution when he was of sound mind, to give it validity--if the incompetency arose from disease producing feebleness of intellect only, long acquiescence, after restoration, would amount to a confirmation.
The two sons answer the bill, denying positively its allegations.
Upon the hearing, the bill was dismlssed, and the ??omplainants have appealed to this Court.
It is clearly to be collected from the mass of evidence exhibited that the old gentleman had frequently expressed that he intended his lands for his boys, and his personal estate for his girls. That in August, 1823, he assembled his boys together, there being four in number, and proposed to convey his tract of land, being then worth about three thousand dollars, to two of them, upon the consideration that they would undertake to take care of and maintain him and his wife during their lives, and his three single daughters so long as they chose to live with them, or remained single; also, provide for a horse for each of them, if they chose to keep one, and pay six hundred dollars, to be apportioned among the other children as directed. George and Richard, two of the sons,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hager v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co.
...on whose behalf an act has been done during his insanity may, after his sanity is restored ratify the act." See, also, Jones et al. v. Evans et al., 7 Dana 96, 37 Ky. 96. In view of all the record I am of the opinion the plaintiff's complaint should be Findings of fact, conclusions of law a......