Long v. Beard

• Decision Date: 03 December 1898
• Citation: 48 S.W. 158
• Parties: LONG v. BEARD et al. [1]
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

48 S.W. 158

LONG v. BEARD et al. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

December 3, 1898

Appeal from circuit court, Shelby county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by J. F. Beard, administrator of Jennie Tolbert, against Mary H. Long and others, to settle the estate of plaintiff's intestate, and to determine certain conflicting claims. Judgment determining claims as prayed, and Mary H. Long appeals; defendant Sidney Tolbert prosecuting a cross appeal. Affirmed on original, and reversed on cross, appeal.

BURNAM J.

This action was instituted by the administrator of Jennie Tolbert to settle her estate, and to determine the conflicting claims of her husband and her mother, as heir at law (she having died childless and intestate), to certain notes alleged to have belonged to her at the time of her death. It is shown that, a few months before her death, deceased received from the estate of her father about $800 in money; that $605 of this money was used by her to purchase from her mother a note held by her on her son-in-law, Doak; and that the remaining $195 was loaned to two parties, Pearce and Collins, the former getting $100, and the latter $95; that the notes for these two sums were by her direction made payable to her husband; and that in addition to these various sums there was due from the estate of her deceased father the sum of $171. The husband, who was made a defendant, says that prior to the death of his wife she gave and delivered to him the $605 note on Doak, and that she also gave to him the $95 and $100 loaned to Collins and Pearce, and that by her direction the notes for these sums were made payable to him. He makes his answer a cross petition, and seeks to have the doctor's bills and burial expenses of his wife, which had been paid by him, refunded to him from the balance due her from the father's administrator. The mother and heir at law denies the alleged gift of the notes, and alleges that they were the property of the deceased at the time of her death; and she also resists the claim of appellee to have the doctor's bills and burial expenses refunded to him out of the estate of his wife. The chancellor adjudged the husband entitled to the $605 note, and the owner of the money loaned to Collins and Pearce; dismissed his cross petition for doctor's bills and burial expenses; and adjudged that he pay the costs of the action, including a fee of $25 to the attorney of the administrator; and from that judgment both parties appeal.

There can be no doubt that a wife may make a valid gift to her husband of her personal property, but courts of equity examine every such transaction with great caution, and with apprehension of some undue influence; but, unless such influence is evinced, the gift will be upheld. See Story, Eq Jur. 764; Clancy, Mar. Wom. 750; Scarborough v. Watkins 9 B. Mon. 547; and Broaddus' Ex'r v Broaddus (Ky.) 27 S.W. 989. The testimony in this case shows that deceased at the time of the alleged gift was of sound mind,...