Parker v. Meadows

• Decision Date: 01 April 1912
• Docket Number: 680
• Citation: 20 Wyo. 183,122 P. 586
• Parties: PARKER v. MEADOWS
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

122 P. 586

20 Wyo. 183

PARKER v. MEADOWS

No. 680

Supreme Court of Wyoming

April 1, 1912

ERROR to the District Court, Crook County; HON. CARROLL H PARMELEE, Judge.

The material facts are stated in the opinion.

Judgment affirmed.

Enterline & LaFleiche, and M. Nichols, for plaintiff in error.

The court having found generally for the plaintiff and also specially found that the defendant failed to keep the covenants of the deed on her part to be performed, and by the judgment ordered the deed to be cancelled and held for naught, it was error to award the personal property to the defendant and the judgment should be modified in that respect. By the judgment also the defendant's cross-petition was dismissed, and there is no allegation in the plaintiff's petition upon which the judgment which was rendered can be predicated. The cancellation of the deed divested the defendant of any and all right she then had under and by virtue of its terms. Neither a motion for new trial nor bill of exceptions is necessary to have this error considered and the judgment modified, since the only contention is that the findings of fact do not support the judgment. (Seibel v. Bath, 5 Wyo. 409.) The judgment not being supported by the pleadings, and the findings of fact not being sufficient to warrant the conclusion of law relative to the disposition of the personal property, the judgment should be modified as suggested in the petition in error. (Nichols v. Board, 13 Wyo. 1.)

No brief for defendant in error.

BEARD CHIEF JUSTICE. SCOTT and POTTER, JJ., concur.

OPINION

BEARD, CHIEF JUSTICE.

This action was brought by the plaintiff in error, Andrew J Parker, against the defendant in error, Ada Meadows, to set aside and cancel a certain deed executed by plaintiff to defendant. The court found generally for the plaintiff and also made certain special findings, and conclusions of law, and entered a decree cancelling the deed and awarding to plaintiff the lands described in the deed, and awarding to defendant the personal property therein described. From the decree giving the personal property to defendant, plaintiff brings error and seeks a modification of the decree to that extent.

The evidence is not brought up, and the only question presented is, whether the conclusions of law and decree are supported by the pleadings and findings.

The deed which plaintiff sought to have set aside was a deed executed by him to the defendant and conveyed certain lands therein described, and "said party of second part is also to have all stock and brand and implements on the premises," excepting a saddle mare, saddle and bridle. The consideration for the deed recited therein was, in substance, one dollar and that defendant should make a home for plaintiff on the land and furnish him with the necessaries of life during his lifetime. The deed contained the following condition: "And it is expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto, that if the party of the second part shall attempt to dispose of said property before his death, or in any manner fail to keep the covenants herein contained, then this agreement of deed shall become void and the title to said lands shall reinvest to the party of the first part, but if the party of the second part shall perform all the conditions herein set forth, then upon the death of said party of the first part, the title to said lands shall be absolute in the said Ada Meadows or her heirs." The deed was in the ordinary form and contained the usual covenants of warranty. The plaintiff in his petition alleged that defendant had failed in a number of particulars to keep and perform the things required of her by the conditions of the deed, among which was that she had attempted to dispose of his property. The defendant in her answer denied any violations of the terms of the deed on her part, and filed a cross-petition alleging fraud on part of plaintiff, and other matters not necessary to set out here. The findings made by the court, so far as necessary to an understanding of the questions presented, are as follows "The court being now fully advised in the premises, doth find generally for the plaintiff and doth further find as follows: That on the 16th day of December, A. D. 1907, the plaintiff being the owner of the property hereinafter...