14 Ky.L.Rptr. 769

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Martin

v.

Martin.

Oct. 22, 1892.

Appeal from court of common pleas, Knox county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by John D. Martin against Daniel F. Martin to determine title to land. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Reversed.

Pryor, J.

Valentine Martin, being advanced in years and unable to support himself and wife, conveyed a small tract of land to his son John D. Martin, in consideration that he would support the two old people during their lives. They lived together as one family under this arrangement for four or five years, when John, the son, as the weight of the testimony shows, neglected his father to such an extent as caused him to complain; resulting in this trouble, in John's handling back to his father the deed, and his leaving the premises. It is proper to say that John's version of the trouble is that his father wanted him to support his sister, and on his refusal he left the place with the father in possession. The father lived for seven or eight years after this, and, being under the impression that the redelivery of the deed reinvested him with title, executed a deed to his son Dan Martin, based on a like consideration. The last son, Daniel, supported his father comfortably for seven or eight years, and after his father's death John, to whom the first deed was made, brought his ejectment to recover the land. The case was transferred to equity without objection, and the deed to John canceled. We think this was error. John had kept his father for several years, and, while he surrendered the deed to his father, it did not divest him of title. The consideration expressed in that conveyance, however, was discharged by the appellee, his brother, under the deed made to him, and made under the belief that the surrender of the first conveyance by John restored the title in the father. That he did support his father is evident, and, as all these parties are in a court of equity, the chancellor should allow the appellee the sum of $50 per annum in addition to the rent of the land for the time he supported his father, and subject the land to its payment. Judgment reversed, and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Martin v. Martin.

Last Update