Maynard v. Maynard

• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: HOBSON, C.J.
• Citation: Maynard v. Maynard, 145 Ky. 197, 140 S.W. 156 (Ky. Ct. App. 1911)
• Decision Date: 01 November 1911
• Parties: MAYNARD v. MAYNARD.

140 S.W. 156

145 Ky. 197

MAYNARD v. MAYNARD.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

November 1, 1911

Appeals from Circuit Court, Pike County.

Suit for divorce by Elizabeth Maynard against M. W. Maynard. From a judgment granting the divorce and establishing property rights, defendant appeals, and plaintiff prosecutes a cross-appeal. Affirmed on both appeals.

Stratton & Stephenson, for appellant.

Roscoe Vanover and Butler & Moore, for appellee.

HOBSON C.J.

Elizabeth Maynard brought this suit against her husband, M. W. Maynard for a divorce. Much proof was taken, and on final hearing the court adjudged her a divorce, and by the judgment determined their rights in the property in contest between them. He appeals. She prosecutes a cross-appeal.

We cannot review the propriety of so much of the judgment as grants the divorce. Under the statute, a judgment granting a divorce cannot be reversed. Ky. Stats., § 950 (Russell's St. § 2784). The only matter, therefore, before us on the appeal, is as to the property in contest, and this raises simply a question of fact.

The parties had been married about 25 years. There were no children born of the marriage. The husband had two children by a former marriage. In the year 1896 the husband bought a small tract of land on the east side of Sandy river. He failed to pay a deferred payment of the purchase money. The land was sold for this, and was bid in by the wife, or in her name, and the deed was made to her. Afterwards they sold off a part of the tract, and the purchase money was paid to her to the extent that she had paid for the land; but the title was left in her to the remainder of the tract. The circuit court adjudged this land to the husband. About the year 1898 they bought a house and lot in Pikeville, and a deed was made to them jointly; but soon thereafter the husband had the grantors to make another deed, in which he joined, and by which the whole title to the property was vested in the wife. The court adjudged her this property.

It is insisted for the husband that the latter deed was not delivered by him, and that the wife did not pay for the property; but the weight of the evidence is in favor of the chancellor's judgment on both these matters. The recorded deed makes out for the wife a prima facie case that it was delivered. There is proof that the husband paid the fee for recording it to the clerk. No complaint was made of it from 1899 until this...