VIERS AND WIFE
v.
MONTGOMERY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decree requiring the defendant to reconvey land that a deceased man had given to her, finding that although his conduct suggested an expectation of marriage, he had explicitly declared he was making an unconditional gift and did not expect her to marry him, thus no consideration existed to support the complainant's claim to recover the property.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
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’s board, and the taxes which had been paid by the defendants, with interest.
*Which decree was, by this court, without argument, reversed, r*-. and the complainant’s bill dismissed, with costs. L
Decree reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
T. Smith & SON, Inc. v. Williams, 275 F.2d 397 (5th Cir. 1960)…l Injunctions Against Proceedings in State Courts, 35 Cal.L.Rev. 545 (1947). . Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Toucey v. New York Life Ins. Co., 314 U.S. 118, 62 S.Ct. 139, 143, 86 L.Ed. 100. . Diggs & Keith v. Wolcott, 1807, 4 Cranch. 179, 8 U.S. 179, 2 L.Ed. 587; Orton v. Smith, 1856, 18 How. 263, 59 U.S. 263, 15 L.Ed. 393. . Watson v. Jones, 1872, 13 Wall. 679, 80 U.S. 679, 20 L.Ed. 666; Essanay Film Mfg. Co. v. Kane, 1922, 258 U.S. 358, 42 S.Ct. 318, 63 L.Ed. 658; Hull v. Burr, 1914, 234 U.S. 712, 34 S.C…
-
Ke-Sun OIL Co. v. Hamilton, 61 F.2d 215 (9th Cir. 1932)…statute of the state authorizing the issuance and execution of final process is not in denial, but is rather in affirmance, of the existence of the jurisdiction of the court until the judgment or decree is satisfied. Diggs v. Wolcott, 4 Cranch, 179 [2 L. Ed. 587]; Peck v. Jenness, 7 How. 612, 625 [12 L. Ed. 841]; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 719 [20 L. Ed. 666]; Haines v. Carpenter, 91 U. S. 254 [23 L. Ed. 345]; Dial v. Reynolds, 96 U. S. 340 [24 L. Ed. 644]; Sargent v. Helton, 115 U. S. 348, 6 S. Ct. 78…
-
Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. Asia (W.D. Wash. 1921)…in the action. Such an injunction, except under the Bankruptcy Act (Comp. St. § 9585 et seq.), no court of the United States can grant. With this exception it is expressly forbidden by statute. Judicial Code, § 265; Diggs v. Wolcott, 4 Cranch, 179, 2 L. Ed. 587; Dial v. Reynolds, 96 U. S. 340, 24 L. Ed. 644. The ban of the statute is not evaded by directing the injunction to the litigating party. Peek v. Jenness, 7 How. 612, 12 L. Ed. 841; Cœur d’Alene Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Spalding, 93 F. 280, 35 C. C. A. 295…