Norris v. Lilly

HENSHAW, J.

Plaintiff sued for a cancellation of a deed to real property which he had made, to defendants, and for the recovery of the value of certain personal property, farming utensils, and the like, which were, upon the land at the time of the conveyance. His complaint alleged that he was an old man seventy-four years of age, and that, induced by the promises of the defendants that they would provide support and maintenance for him during every alternate two months of his natural life, and would pay all his existing debts and obligations, he executed to them a deed of all his realty. He alleged that the promises and representations were made in bad faith with intent to deceive and defraud him of his property; that the promises were made without any intent on the part of defendants to perform them, and that in fact they had wholly failed and neglected to provide him with support and maintenance, nor had they paid any of his debts. The answer denied the bad faith and fraud. It agreed with the complaint upon the question of the moving consideration for the deed, and averred complete performance upon the part of defendants, —the payment of his debts and his maintenance and support, —until plaintiff refused further to accept such support and maintenance. The performance of defendants’ contract is alleged to have continued from the winter of 1896 until October, 1902. They specifically aver a payment of doctor’s bills, funeral expenses, etc., on behalf of the plaintiff in excess of the sum of one hundred and thirty-five dollars, and,

[756]

finally, they allege that they never have refused to comply "with any of the terms of the contract, and stand ready and "willing to perform them all.

Such, in brief, are the pleadings in the case, and upon them the court rendered its judgment that the deed of plaintiff to defendants be canceled, that the defendants execute a deed of conveyance of the property to plaintiff, and that plaintiff have his costs of suit. Prom the judgment so rendered on the pleadings the defendants appeal.

Prom the argument of the respondent upon this appeal it appears that the trial court based its decision and judgment upon the case of

Grimmer

v.