A court of equity will not interfere between a donee of land by
deed and a devisee under a will of the donor in a case where there
is no fraud.
Error to the District Court of Kentucky in a suit in chancery
brought originally by Montgomery against W. M. Viers and Patsy his
wife, late Patsy Henly, to compel the latter to convey to the
former the legal estate in certain lands in Kentucky which one
Ebenezer Brooks, since deceased, conveyed, by deeds dated 10
November, 1791, to the defendant's wife, while a widow, and which
Brooks by his last will devised to the complainant Montgomery. The
bill charged that the only consideration of the deeds from Brooks
to Patsy Henly was that she should "take him as her husband," which
she refused to do, but intermarried with the defendant, W. M.
Viers. It did not aver that the complainant was of kin to the
deceased or that he had any equitable claim other than as a
devisee. Nor did it charge the defendant Patsy with any promise of
marriage or any breach of such a promise, nor with fraud in
obtaining the deeds. The will of Brooks, referred to in the bill,
calls the complainant his friend and cousin. The deeds were of
bargain and sale in fee, and purported to be in consideration of
�1,100 Virginia currency, and contained a warranty against Brooks
and all claiming under him.
Page 8 U. S. 178
The answer of the defendants denied that the consideration of
the deeds was as stated in the bill, and avers that the defendant
Patsy, although solicited, always refused to make any promise of
marriage to the deceased; that he often pressed her to accept his
land, which she for some time declined; that he declared he did not
expect any consideration, but wished her to receive it as a gift,
and that he did not expect she would marry him.
It alleged that Brooks had boarded in her house some months,
where he had been kindly and hospitably treated without any charge
being made against him, and suggested that this, together with the
affection which he entertained for her but which she always
discountenanced, were his motives for giving her the land. That she
at last, by the advice of her friends, accepted it, and that when
he had executed the deeds he voluntarily declared himself to be
fully satisfied in the presence of the subscribing witnesses.
The facts found by the jury were that the defendant Patsy, by
her conduct to the deceased, induced him to suppose that she would
marry him, and that this encouragement or inducement was the only
consideration she gave for the land except his boarding, but that
she never made him any promise of marriage. That he had urged her
to accept the land before she agreed to take it, and had declared
to her that he did not expect to receive any consideration from
her, but wished her to accept it as a gift, and that at the time he
executed the deeds, he declared he did not expect that she would
marry him. That she was advised by her friends to take the land
before she agreed to accept it, and that after the execution of the
deeds she offered to return to him the land, but he would not
receive it. That Brooks boarded in her house, and never paid her
anything therefor except the land. The jury also found the will of
the deceased and the devise to the complainant.
The decree of the court below, upon argument, was that the
defendants should convey the land to the complainant and that the
complainant should pay the defendants the amount of Brooks' board
and the taxes which had been paid by the defendants, with
interest.
Page 8 U. S. 179
Which decree was by this Court, without argument, reversed, and
the complainant's bill dismissed with costs.
Decree reversed.
