Vicroy v. Vicroy

• Decision Date: 19 March 1898
• Citation: 45 S.W. 75
• Parties: VICROY v. VICROY.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

45 S.W. 75

VICROY v. VICROY.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 19, 1898

Appeal from circuit court, Mason county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by Margaret J. Vicroy against Wesley Vicroy. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Milton Johnson, for appellant.

E. L. Worthington and L. W. Galbreath, for appellee.

WHITE, J.

This action was brought by appellee, Margaret J. Vicroy, in the Mason circuit court, against appellant, Wesley Vicroy, to recover on a promissory note for $1,350, given as part of the purchase price of a tract of land sold by appellee to appellant. The defendant (appellant) admits the purchase of the land, the execution of the note, and the correctness of the amount due, but, for answer, says that he ought not to be compelled to pay same, because there is a cloud on the title to the land, and that appellee is insolvent. The cloud alleged is that in 1875, when appellant and appellee were husband and wife, the appellee executed a deed for this same land to the appellant and their children, reserving to herself a life estate. A copy of this deed is filed with the answer, and shows that it was signed only by appellee, and also shows on its face that appellee was then a married woman, and the wife of appellant, to whom she attempted to convey. To this answer a demurrer was sustained, and, appellant failing to plead further, judgment was rendered against him for the note sued on, and for the enforcement of the lien. From this judgment, he has appealed.

We are of opinion that the answer presented no defense. The deed of 1875, executed by a married woman to her husband, was void, not only as to him, but as to other grantees as well. A wife cannot convey land without her husband joining in the deed. She cannot convey directly to her husband at all. The deed was not a cloud on the title. However, if this old deed had been a cloud upon the title, we do not think appellant can withhold the purchase money, after having bought the land and accepted the deed from appellee with a full knowledge of the fact of the old deed to himself and children. The demurrer to the answer was properly sustained. The judgment is affirmed, with damages.