Manikee's Adm'x v. Beard

• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: PRYOR, C.J.
• Citation: Manikee's Adm'x v. Beard, 85 Ky. 20, 2 S.W. 545 (Ky. Ct. App. 1887)
• Decision Date: 11 January 1887
• Parties: MANIKEE, Adm'x, v. BEARD.

2 S.W. 545

85 Ky. 20

MANIKEE, Adm'x, v. BEARD.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

January 11, 1887

Appeal from circuit court, Nelson county.

E. E McKay, for appellant, Manikee, Adm'x. Wm. Johnson, for appellee, Beard.

PRYOR C.J.

The appellant is the widow and administratrix of Elisha Manikee deceased. She was his second wife, and had no children. His first wife was the sister of appellant, and at her death left children. The deceased husband, at his death, owned considerable real estate, and some personalty. He had, a few days prior to his death, some twelve or fourteen hundred dollars in money, and cash notes on persons within his county, amounting in all to near $2,500, that all seems to have been found in the possession of the appellee, who was a daughter by his first wife. The appellant brought this action, as widow and administratrix, claiming that this money and the notes belonged to her intestate, and that she was entitled to it for the purposes of distribution. Besides that the gift to the daughter, if made, was in fraud of her marital rights, and executed for the express purpose of preventing her from sharing in the distribution. She also claimed some cattle and hogs that she alleged belonged to her intestate, and asked judgment for their value.

As to the cattle and hogs, we are inclined to adjudge they belonged to the appellee, and were the natural increase of stock she had carried to the father's farm when she moved upon it and the judgment to that extent will not be disturbed; but as to the money and notes there is more difficulty in sustaining the judgment below.

The intestate was sick for about four weeks, and during this last illness, and not long prior to his death, he gave to his daughter all the money and cash notes he owned, leaving nothing for distribution but the proceeds of the stock, farming utensils, and household furniture. His wife, so far as the proof shows, was kind to her husband, and there was no motive for his conduct, except his purpose, that seems to have been fixed, to prevent his widow from sharing in the distribution.

The appellee says that she accepted the gift with a trust upon it, giving $500 for the education of a son, and $500 for the education of a son of her sister, and the balance, after paying for a tombstone or monument, the appellee was to have. There was doubtless some ill feeling on the part of the husband towards his wife, as it is proven that he said the reason he gave the money to his...