Ross v. Perkins

Citations

• 93 Kan. 579
• 144 P. 1004
• 1914 Kan. LEXIS 473

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Deeds — Effective and Valid Delivery to Grantees. A grantor executed two deeds conveying an undivided one-half of certain land to each of two persons, who were relatives and had formerly been members of his family, upon the consideration that each grantee should pay one-half of his debts and funeral expenses and that they should erect a monument of a certain value at his grave. After placing each deed in an envelope with the name of the grantee endorsed thereon he handed both to one of the grantees, who was present when they were executed, with the remark, “When you record yours, you may record Ida’s also,” and she and the grantor then rode together to a bank, when he carried them into the bank and handed the deeds to a custodian with the request that he keep them, and in response to an inquiry the grantor told the custodian that he would find the directions on the inside-. The conveyances were made on the further condition that the grantor should retain possession of the land during his lifetime, and also that if he should marry again his wife should retain undisturbed possession during her lifetime, and that during this period the grantees should not sell nor incumber the land. Held, that the facts in the ease are sufficient to support a finding that there was a valid and effective delivery of the deeds to the grantees.</p> <p>2. Same — Rights of a Subsequent Wife of Grantor Determined— Life Estate Terminated. Shortly after the execution of the deeds the grantor married again and his wife lived with him upon the land for about seven years and until his death. In a controversy as to the validity of the deeds it was held in the trial court that the conveyance of more than one-half of the land operated as a fraud on the marital rights of the wife and she was awarded one-half of the land. She complains of the ruling and insists that she was entitled to the whole of it. Under the facts in the case it is held that she has no reason to