Smith v. Pierce
| Decision Date | 27 December 1892 |
| Citation | 25 A. 1092,65 Vt. 200 |
| Parties | LIZZIE L. SMITH v. H. M. PIERCE, ADMR |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
GENERAL TERM, 1892
Bill for specific performance. Heard upon the pleadings and a master's report at the March term, Washington county 1892. THOMPSON, Chancellor, decreed that the defendants convey the real estate to the oratrix, and that she recover her costs. The defendants appeal. The opinion states the case.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
T J. Deavitt for the defendants.
In 1879 the intestate owned and occupied a house and garden worth $ 500. He was old, feeble, dissipated, without wife, without children, without near relatives that he loved without anybody to care for him. He had a little personal property, but owing to his secretive habits nobody knew how much, but the master thinks it did not exceed $ 400. He lived alone, and did his own cooking and housework. His garden afforded much of his food, and his fuel was the flood-wood that he gathered from the stream that flowed past his door. The oratrix was a widow in poor circumstances, though she had a cooking stove and other household goods sufficient to furnish such a house as the intestate's. In the fall of that year she, with her son, a young lad, went to live with the intestate. She claimed that the following spring they entered into an arrangement that she was to remain with and care for the intestate during his life and have his property and that she did remain there under that arrangement for five years, when she left because he neglected to perfect it so she would be sure of the property. Her services during the period are found to have been worth $ 3 per week. But this claimed agreement is not found.
After the oratrix went away the intestate again lived alone, and in a most miserable condition. He gradually failed in health blindness came upon him, diabetes set in, and he continued his dissipation. In time he came greatly to desire that the oratrix should return and take care of him, and he caused a letter to be written to her to that effect, and telling her that she could have what there was if she would. She not replying to this letter, he soon caused another to be written to her, more full and explicit than the first, in which he said that he wanted her to come back and take care of him, and he would deed her the place and let her have what money he had. She made no written response to this letter, but within two weeks after it was mailed, acting upon the assurances contained in both letters, she came back to the intestate's house, accepted his proposition, and in pursuance thereof remained with, and faithfully cared for and supported him until his death; and it is found that what she did and what she furnished for him during this period were worth $ 5 per week, which amounts to more than his entire estate was worth when he died. The house was never deeded to her, but it fairly appears from the report that she was at the head of affairs and had the dominant possession of the premises, although the intestate continued to remain there as a recipient of her care and support. Since the death...
To continue reading
Request your trial