Luty v. Cresta

COOPER, J.

This is an action in ejectment to recover the premises described in the complaint, and damages for the withholding thereof. Findings were filed, upon which judgment was entered for defendant. This appeal is from the judgment and the order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

In the year 1873 the “Abbey Homestead Association,” a corporation, being the owner in fee of the premises, made a deed conveying the same to F. E. Luty, the father of the plaintiff, who died before the controversy in this case arose. In June, 1887, said F. E. Luty conveyed the property to Helen M. Luty. In October, 1899, Helen M. Luty, conveyed the property to defendant, who thereupon went into possession, and was in such possession at the time of the commencement . of this action. These deeds were all duly recorded, and show the title to be of record in the defendant. The contest in this case arises out of the fact that there are two persons bearing the name of Helen M. Luty, one the daughter of F. E. Luty, deceased, and who is the plaintiff here, and the other a sister. The sole issue before the court, and the one on which the case depended, was as to the identity of the Helen M. Luty named as grantee in the deed of F. E. Luty. The court found, “That said Frederick E. Luty, in the year 1887, by deed of grant conveyed the premises described in the complaint to his said sister Helen M. Luty, the predecessor and grantor of said Cresta . . . ; that said plaintiff’s only and sole claim to said property arises in her contention that she is the grantee named in the said deed from Frederick E. Luty to Helen M. Luty, but said claim or contention is untrue and false and without foundation. . . . That said deed by Frederick E. Luty, was made and actually and personally delivered to Helen M. Luty, sister of said Frederick E. Luty.” The above-quoted findings are supported by the evidence. Helen M. Luty, the sister of deceased, testified that her brother, John S. Luty, was one of the officers and promoters of the “Abbey Homestead As

[591]

sociation,” which owned a large tract of land, of which the premises in controversy were a part; that in consideration, of his services a portion of the Abbey Homestead property, of which the premises in controversy are a

part,

was awarded to said John S. Luty by the company; that by direction of John S. Luty, the property so awarded to him was deeded to said P. B. Luty, who agreed with John S. Luty to hold the title subject to his directions; that John S. Luty died in the year 1886, having before his death requested P. B. Luty to convey to her the premises in controversy; that the deed, after being executed, was delivered to her in June, 1887, and placed of record; that she afterward received the rents and paid the taxes on the property.