Taylor v. Taylor
Citations
- 79 Kan. 161
- 99 P. 814
- 1908 Kan. LEXIS 205
Syllabus
<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Contracts—Specific Performance of Oral Agreement to Convey Land—Possession. Where it is sought to enforce a parol contract to convey lands, and possession is relied upon as part performance, the rule that the possession must be exclusive is satisfied where it is shown that the possession was as exclusive as the terms of.the contract would permit.</p> <p>2. - Same. A parol contract was entered into 1 between parents and a son sixteen years of age, to the effect that the son was to continue to live with the parents on the farm and provide a home for them and support them so long as they lived, in consideration of which they agreed that he should have the land at their death. Pursuant to the agreement the son was placed in the possession of the land by the parents, and continued in the possession until the father’s death, which - occurred when the son had reached the age of thirty-four. The son devoted the entire rents and profits of the land to the. support of his parents until the death of his father, and after that to the support of his mother. He paid the taxes and made lasting and valuable improvements thereon, and fully performed all the conditions of the contract on his part. In a suit for partition, brought by the heirs of the father, held, that the- son was entitled to a decree declaring him to be the owner of the land, subject to the rights of the mother to the use and enjoyment of the rents and profits during her lifetime, and subject to the condition that he continue to do and perform all the conditions and terms of the contract during her natural life.</p> <p>3. Practice, Supreme Court—Immaterial Error. The duty is enjoined upon this court to refuse a reversal for errors which do not affect the substantial rights of a party. (Civ. Code, § 140.)</p> <p>4. Evidence—Trial to ‘the Court—Exclusion of Competent Testimony. Where the trial is to the court, and findings are made which are supported by the evidence, the exclusion
Judges: Porter
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
9 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Downey v. Union Trust Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1942-11-30· cited 43×
- Smith v. CameronSupreme Court of Kansas· 1914-06-06· cited 26×
- Harris v. MorrisonSupreme Court of Kansas· 1917-03-10· cited 24×
- Schoonover v. SchoonoverSupreme Court of Kansas· 1912-02-10· cited 23×
- Naugle v. NaugleSupreme Court of Kansas· 1913-05-10· cited 16×
- Eakin v. WycoffSupreme Court of Kansas· 1925-03-07· cited 14×
- Eastwood v. EastwoodSupreme Court of Kansas· 1949-06-11· cited 12×
- Roberts v. Coffey, AdministratorSupreme Court of Kansas· 1967-04-08· cited 6×
- White v. WhiteSupreme Court of Kansas· 1927-11-05· cited 3×
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.