Payette v. Ferrier

• Decision Date: 09 January 1899
• Citation: 20 Wash. 479,55 P. 629
• Parties: PAYETTE v. FERRIER et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

55 P. 629

20 Wash. 479

PAYETTE v. FERRIER et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 9, 1899

Appeal from superior court, Lewis county; W. H. H. Kean, Judge.

Suit by Joseph Payette against J. W. Ferrier, administrator of the estates of Jacob Patton and Ida Payette Patton, deceased, and others. There was a decree for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

J. E. Willis, for appellant.

Reynolds & Stewart, for respondent Ferrier.

Millett & Harmon, for respondent Jacobus.

GORDON J.

Two causes of action are attempted to be set up in the complaint,--the first, to subject the premises in question to a lien for plaintiff's support; and the second, to cancel and set aside a conveyance of the premises made to Jacob Patton and Ida Payette Patton, and also to cancel and set aside a mortgage upon the premises given by Jacob and Ida Patton to the respondent Jacobus. It appears from the complaint that on the 9th day of March, 1882, the plaintiff a widower, and the father of Ida Payette Patton, was the owner of the premises involved in this controversy (being a farm located in Lewis county), and, desiring to make provision for his support and maintenance in his declining years, executed and delivered to his daughter and her husband a conveyance of the farm, 'in consideration of one dollar in hand paid, and also the following agreement; covenants herein mentioned to be hereafter performed. It is to clothe board, and maintain the said Joseph Payette during his lifetime, or, at the option of either party, to pay a yearly rent of one hundred and fifty pounds of pork, fifty pounds of beef, twelve pounds of rice, fifteen pounds of soap, two gallons of coal oil, twenty-five pounds of Liverpool salt and when I am unable to get my wood to get it for me, and buy me one dollar's medicine per year, if I need it, ten pounds of butter, and two and one-half barrels of flour sixty pounds of sugar, twelve pounds of coffee, five pounds of tea, one suit of clothes, cost about eight dollars, two pair of overalls, one pair of drawers, two pairs half hose, one pair of boots, to cost five dollars, one pair of brogans, and one milch cow, if needed; also, if in need of a cooking stove, to pay half of the cost of the stove.' The deed was accepted and forthwith recorded, and on August 13, 1883, the daughter and her husband mortgaged the premises to the respondent Jacobus to secure an alleged indebtedness for $400. Respondents Ferrier and Jacobus are the only defendants who appeared in the action, and their separate demurrers were sustained, and judgment of dismissal followed.

The question for determination is, does the complaint state a cause of action against either or both of the respondents? Ida Payette Patton died in August, 1891, and Jacob Patton died in March, 1892. Respondent Ferrier is administrator of their estates, and respondent Mary Saunders is guardian of their minor children. Plaintiff bases his right to a lien upon the land for support and maintenance upon a decree of the superior court of Lewis county entered in March, 1896, in a suit then pending between the present parties, with the exception of respondent Jacobus, who was not joined in that action. That action was based upon an alleged failure to furnish support prior to the year 1895. The court denied a rescission, but entered a decree which recited that plaintiff was given a right to a lien upon the premises for the support to which he was entitled for the year 1893 and subsequent years. Appellant insists that this decree established his right to a lien, and that the question is res adjudicata as to respondent Jacobus, although he was not a party to that suit, and bound him, as the privy of the grantees Patton and wife. The conclusion we have reached regarding the other cause of action set up in the complaint makes it unnecessary to determine the effect of the former decree as regards the question of plaintiff's right to a lien.

We think the demurrer was improperly sustained as to the second cause of action. The jurisdiction of a court of equity to cancel a conveyance made by a parent to a child, when the child fails to furnish the support provided by the agreement constituting the consideration for the conveyance, is well established. Bogie v. Bogie, 41 Wis. 219; Thomas v. Thomas, 24 Or. 251, 33 P. 565; Patterson v. Patterson (Iowa) 47 N.W. 768; Bresnahan v. Bresnahan, 46 Wis. 385, 1 N.W. 39; Jenkins v. Jenkins, 3 T. B. Mon. 327; Scott's...