November 12, 1885:
Em Prater,colored, died in Louisa, Tuesday.
November 19, 1885:
Dr. Banfield, administrator of Greenville Kinner, deceased.
Miss Carrie Snead, youngest daughter of S.H. Snead, died last Tuesday afternoon.
August 18, 1887:
On August 4th, 1887, Judge John Jordan departed this life. His death is lamented by his multitude of acquaintances. The deceased has served as clerk Lawrence County and Circuit Courts, once faithfully represented this county in the Legislature, was twice elected County Judge and has served as a Justice of the Peace; and in all these capacities he has acquitted himself with satisfaction to his constituents and honor to himself. At the time of his death he was Treasurer of Lawrence county. His many friends deeply deplore his loss to the county. He leaves 10 living children -four sons and six daughters- of whom eight are married. He was a member of the Christian church and his last words were a profession of faith in the Saviour. The sympathy of the community is with the family.
February 16, 1888:
James F. Estep, son-in-law of D. J. Casey,Esq., killed in coalmines in Caperton, W.VA. on the 5th instant. His body was brought here and interred at the Casey cemetery on the 8th.
May 17, 1888:
James Asberry Boldman, little son of F. M. Boldman, departed this life May 4, 1888. He was nearly 14 months old.
July 18, 1889:
Death of an Ancient Odd Fellow. Died, on last Sunday, at his home in Louisa, Mr Matthew Drake, aged 69. He had been in an almost helpless condition for several months and death was no doubt a welcome relief for him. The burial took place on Tuesday under the auspices of the Louisa Lodge, of the I.O.O.F., of which the deceased was a faithful member of longstanding. He leaves seven motherless children, his wife having died four years ago. Mr. Drake was born in Pennsylvania and leaving home when a boy he became a sailor, which occupation he followed for thirty years, traversing nearly all the seas of the world. He drew a pension for service in the Mexican war. He came to Louisa to visit a sister twenty-five years ago, and resided here ever since. He married here and was engaged in the merchandising business for some time.From the best information we can obtain it seems that he was probably one of the oldest Odd Fellows in the country, as he joined the "Ancient Order" a great many years ago in Baltimore.
October 27, 1893:
Peter I. Skaggs, one of our oldest citizens, died at his home in this place yesterday evening, after an illness of several days. Had he lived until December he would have been 79 years old. He leaves two daughters - Mrs.A.P. Ferguson and Mrs. David Wellman. His wife died several years ago.
September 21, 1894:
Bertha, daughter of John M. and Grace Diamond, departed this life August 2, 1894, aged one year and four days.
Death notices abstracted from the Big Sandy News by Marlitta H. Perkins, 1996
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Death Notices - Webbville
Webbville
Jan. 26, 1888:
On January 8th Missouri Hicks died of pneumonia fever.
On January 9th, the wife of Calvin Perkins died.
Apr.11, 1888:
Died last week at Glenwood, the daughter of Wesley Webb, of typhoid fever.
Died, Jane Stewart of Cat's fork, of consumption
Died last week, the infant child of John Pennington's.
August 2, 1888:
Died, on the 28th instant,an infant child of J.C. Webb, of flux
May 25, 1894:
Wm. Carter has lost three children inside of ten days, and two or three more are not expected to live (measles).
Wm. Howell lost a little girl about six years old (measles).
August 3, 1894:
Jerry Riffe Jr. shot and killed Lee Moseley. Both parties were drunk. They had been taking in an excursion to Riverton and Moseley said he was going to go back to Willard and Riffe said that he should not go. A few words were passed when Riffe said "I am going to shoot you." The shooting took place on Sunday and Moseley died on Tuesday at 4 o'clock. The boys were always the best of friends and never before had a word of trouble, but such is the result of whiskey. What must have been the feeling of the father when the news reached him of the shooting when just seven months and seven days before one of his sons had been killed?
April 19, 1895:
Wm. Kouns, of Cherokee, died last Friday and his remains were laid to rest in the old family graveyard on Bolts Fork. He leaves many friends and relatives to mourn his loss.
October 8, 1897:
Died on the 4th instant, Caroline, the wife of A.J. Woods. She was a great sufferer and leaves many friends to mourn her loss.
Death notices abstracted from the Big Sandy News by Marlitta H. Perkins, 1996
Jan. 26, 1888:
On January 8th Missouri Hicks died of pneumonia fever.
On January 9th, the wife of Calvin Perkins died.
Apr.11, 1888:
Died last week at Glenwood, the daughter of Wesley Webb, of typhoid fever.
Died, Jane Stewart of Cat's fork, of consumption
Died last week, the infant child of John Pennington's.
August 2, 1888:
Died, on the 28th instant,an infant child of J.C. Webb, of flux
May 25, 1894:
Wm. Carter has lost three children inside of ten days, and two or three more are not expected to live (measles).
Wm. Howell lost a little girl about six years old (measles).
August 3, 1894:
Jerry Riffe Jr. shot and killed Lee Moseley. Both parties were drunk. They had been taking in an excursion to Riverton and Moseley said he was going to go back to Willard and Riffe said that he should not go. A few words were passed when Riffe said "I am going to shoot you." The shooting took place on Sunday and Moseley died on Tuesday at 4 o'clock. The boys were always the best of friends and never before had a word of trouble, but such is the result of whiskey. What must have been the feeling of the father when the news reached him of the shooting when just seven months and seven days before one of his sons had been killed?
April 19, 1895:
Wm. Kouns, of Cherokee, died last Friday and his remains were laid to rest in the old family graveyard on Bolts Fork. He leaves many friends and relatives to mourn his loss.
October 8, 1897:
Died on the 4th instant, Caroline, the wife of A.J. Woods. She was a great sufferer and leaves many friends to mourn her loss.
Death notices abstracted from the Big Sandy News by Marlitta H. Perkins, 1996
Baptist Preacher Dead
Louisa, Ky., May 6. - Mathies Clevenger, a Baptist preacher living near Blaine, this county, died very suddenly.
[Morning Herald, May 7, 1901]
[Morning Herald, May 7, 1901]
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Louisa Man Burned
Louisa, Ky., May 18. - Dan Allison was burned to death last night at his home near Louisa. The building was consumed by the flames. Allison was seventy years old and lived alone. He was well known and one of the last members of a family once prominent in this county.
[Lexington Herald, May 19, 1910]
[Lexington Herald, May 19, 1910]
Dies From White Plague
Louisa, Ky., July 6 - The wife of County Clerk Mont Holt died at this place of consumption. Her age was thirty-two. Three small children survive.
[Lexington Herald, July 7, 1909]
[Lexington Herald, July 7, 1909]
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Belle Compton, Louisa
Back of picture states "Belle Compton, Louisa".© 2012 by Marlitta H. Perkins. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of the images without express written notice by Marlitta H. Perkins is strictly prohibited.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Demented Woman's Deed
She Puts Arsenic in the Coffee Pot and Poisons the Entire Family
Catlettsburg, Ky., May 8. - Mrs. George Carter, who resides with her husband in Lawrence county, Ky., ten miles west of Louisa, made a desperate but unsuccessful attempt to poison her entire family with arsenic Monday night. For some time the woman has been in a very despondent mood, and her friends fear she is insane.
On the day mentioned she placed a quantity of arsenic in the coffee pot. After the family had partaken of the evening meal, all became seriously ill; medical assistance was summond, and the woman told what she had done, adding she wanted to die, but did not wish to leave her husband and two children. One of the children is expected to die.
[Newark Daily Advocate, Newark, Ohio, May 8, 1891]
Catlettsburg, Ky., May 8. - Mrs. George Carter, who resides with her husband in Lawrence county, Ky., ten miles west of Louisa, made a desperate but unsuccessful attempt to poison her entire family with arsenic Monday night. For some time the woman has been in a very despondent mood, and her friends fear she is insane.
On the day mentioned she placed a quantity of arsenic in the coffee pot. After the family had partaken of the evening meal, all became seriously ill; medical assistance was summond, and the woman told what she had done, adding she wanted to die, but did not wish to leave her husband and two children. One of the children is expected to die.
[Newark Daily Advocate, Newark, Ohio, May 8, 1891]
Death of Nancy Wellman
Mrs. Nancy Wellman, who died at her home near Louisa, Ky., at the age of 95 years, was the mother of 16 children, 11 of whom were married. She had 88 grandchildren, 192 great-grandchildren and 31 great-great-grandchildren. She also raised nine orphan children.
[Freeborn County Standard, Albert Lea, Minnesota, August 31, 1898]
[Freeborn County Standard, Albert Lea, Minnesota, August 31, 1898]
Death of Nellie McClure
Miss Belle Cummings, who has been making her home with her sister, Mrs. James Adams, of Gallia street, was called to Louisa, Ky., Saturday, by a telegram announcing the serious illness of her niece.
Mrs. James Adams, of Gallia street, left this morning for Ashland, Ky., to attend the funeral of her little niece, Miss Nellie McClure, who died at Louisa, Ky., recently, of brain fever.
[Portsmouth Times, May 26, 1894]
Mrs. James Adams, of Gallia street, left this morning for Ashland, Ky., to attend the funeral of her little niece, Miss Nellie McClure, who died at Louisa, Ky., recently, of brain fever.
[Portsmouth Times, May 26, 1894]
The Peach Orchard Coal Field
A Split in the Coal Seams Making Two Distinct Veins 60 Feet Apart
The Peach Orchard coal field in Kentucky is thus described by a writer in Black Diamond: The Chatteroi railroad runs almost due south from Ashland, Ky., through a country rich in coal and iron ores. The route is rather picturesque: on one side is the sluggish Big Sandy, and on the other high hills covered with timber. At Louisa, the county seat of Lawrence County, the river separates into the Tug and Levisa Forks, and the railroad enters the coal region between them. All along the route, on the west side from Ashland to Louisa, one saw small openings where the farmers have penetrated the hills for their winter's supply of coal, but not until Peach Orchard is reached is there any regular attempt at mining. Peach Orchard is an old village, built some time in 1850 or 1851. Before the Chatteroi Railroad was built the coal was sent down to the Ohio river in barges. The bargemen counted it a lucky voyage if they saved two out of three of the boats. So much coal was lost in this way that some future geologist may imagine that he has discovered a new vein of coal in the bottom of the Big Sandy river.
The works at Peach Orchard are operated by the Great Western Mining & Manufacturing Co., and are under the care of L. S. Johnson. The mines are 100 feet up in the hills, the coal being lowered on inclined planes. Their capacity is 400 tons a day. The coal is a dry-burning splint coal, remarkably free from sulphur and other impurities, hard and firm, and well adapted for transportation. The seam is six feet in height, but several inches have to be sorted out and thrown aside as bone-coal and shale. Peach Orchard is three miles east from the Louisa Fork of the Big Sandy. The coal in the front or river hill is thin. The first operators before the war tunneled through these hills in this thin coal to reach the vein in its full growth. The old tunnels and tramroads are still there, but the mine owners, and miners of those antebellum days have been gathered to their fathers.
The Chatteroi road, before reaching Peach Orchard, is tunneled through one of the hills three-quarters of a mile long, in the coal level. The vein splits in two in this tunnel, the intercolated material being fire-clay and afterward shale. In fifty yards, the foreign intrusive matter increases to eight feet, the upper member of the seam rising and the lower maintaining its position. The fire-clay under the upper member soon becomes from two to three feet thick. The upper coal gradually loses thickness and finally disappears as a feather edge. At the northern end of the tunnel the upper member reappears and is seen descending toward its normal place, and as the coal leaves the tunnel the two members are less than six feet apart
This splitting of the seam has played havoc with the state geologists of Kentucky, who recognize in two veins sixty feet apart a few miles north of the tunnel the upper and lower members of the tunnel coal. There is no instance in the history of mining operations in the United States of a seam of coal splitting indefinitely. Instances are numerous of coals splitting in two, but the upper member either thins out or disappears entirely or returns to its normal position.
The coal of the Peach Orchard region belongs to the upper series of the lower coal measures. They have no equivalents in the Ohio coal field, their place being represented by the barren measures of the State Geological Reports. In the Peach Orchard field the coal seems to improve to the southeast, and on the Middle Fork of Rock Castle creek, sixteen miles southeast of Peach Orchard, the coals are represented by six veins in the same hill, said to aggregate forty feet. On the Buffenmeyer tract, about midway between Rock Castle and Peach Orchard, one of these seams of coal measures twelve feet in thickness, including three bands of shale.
[Courier, Connellsville, PA, August 2, 1889]
The Peach Orchard coal field in Kentucky is thus described by a writer in Black Diamond: The Chatteroi railroad runs almost due south from Ashland, Ky., through a country rich in coal and iron ores. The route is rather picturesque: on one side is the sluggish Big Sandy, and on the other high hills covered with timber. At Louisa, the county seat of Lawrence County, the river separates into the Tug and Levisa Forks, and the railroad enters the coal region between them. All along the route, on the west side from Ashland to Louisa, one saw small openings where the farmers have penetrated the hills for their winter's supply of coal, but not until Peach Orchard is reached is there any regular attempt at mining. Peach Orchard is an old village, built some time in 1850 or 1851. Before the Chatteroi Railroad was built the coal was sent down to the Ohio river in barges. The bargemen counted it a lucky voyage if they saved two out of three of the boats. So much coal was lost in this way that some future geologist may imagine that he has discovered a new vein of coal in the bottom of the Big Sandy river.
The works at Peach Orchard are operated by the Great Western Mining & Manufacturing Co., and are under the care of L. S. Johnson. The mines are 100 feet up in the hills, the coal being lowered on inclined planes. Their capacity is 400 tons a day. The coal is a dry-burning splint coal, remarkably free from sulphur and other impurities, hard and firm, and well adapted for transportation. The seam is six feet in height, but several inches have to be sorted out and thrown aside as bone-coal and shale. Peach Orchard is three miles east from the Louisa Fork of the Big Sandy. The coal in the front or river hill is thin. The first operators before the war tunneled through these hills in this thin coal to reach the vein in its full growth. The old tunnels and tramroads are still there, but the mine owners, and miners of those antebellum days have been gathered to their fathers.
The Chatteroi road, before reaching Peach Orchard, is tunneled through one of the hills three-quarters of a mile long, in the coal level. The vein splits in two in this tunnel, the intercolated material being fire-clay and afterward shale. In fifty yards, the foreign intrusive matter increases to eight feet, the upper member of the seam rising and the lower maintaining its position. The fire-clay under the upper member soon becomes from two to three feet thick. The upper coal gradually loses thickness and finally disappears as a feather edge. At the northern end of the tunnel the upper member reappears and is seen descending toward its normal place, and as the coal leaves the tunnel the two members are less than six feet apart
This splitting of the seam has played havoc with the state geologists of Kentucky, who recognize in two veins sixty feet apart a few miles north of the tunnel the upper and lower members of the tunnel coal. There is no instance in the history of mining operations in the United States of a seam of coal splitting indefinitely. Instances are numerous of coals splitting in two, but the upper member either thins out or disappears entirely or returns to its normal position.
The coal of the Peach Orchard region belongs to the upper series of the lower coal measures. They have no equivalents in the Ohio coal field, their place being represented by the barren measures of the State Geological Reports. In the Peach Orchard field the coal seems to improve to the southeast, and on the Middle Fork of Rock Castle creek, sixteen miles southeast of Peach Orchard, the coals are represented by six veins in the same hill, said to aggregate forty feet. On the Buffenmeyer tract, about midway between Rock Castle and Peach Orchard, one of these seams of coal measures twelve feet in thickness, including three bands of shale.
[Courier, Connellsville, PA, August 2, 1889]
Aged Farmer Killed by Vicious Jack at Louisa
Louisa, Ky., Jan. 26 - John Sammons, aged 76, met a horrible death at his house, six miles south of this place. He owned a vicious jack, and went to the stable to give it a bucket of water. The animal is kept tied, but had broken the halter and when the old man went in he was immediately attacked, The jack caught him by the shoulder with its teeth and struck him to the ground with its fore feet, and then jumped upon him with its knees, crushing his breast-bone. The beast kept up the attack until the old man's wife reached the scene and thrust a pitchfork into it. Several bones were broken in Sammon's body, and he was severely bitten in many places. The calf of the leg was almost torn off by the animal's teeth. The old man died within a few hours.
[Lexington Morning Herald, Jan. 27, 1898]
[Lexington Morning Herald, Jan. 27, 1898]
The Kentucky State Register (1847) - Lawrence County
LAWRENCE COUNTY.
Formed, 1821.
County seat, LOUISA.
Terms of County Court, Fourth Monday in each month, except May and November.
Justices of the Peace, George E. Chadwick, John Crabtree, David Curnett, George Justice, Emmanuel Brammer, Zalter Cushing, Peter Fulkerson, Wm. M'Clure, Isaac Bolt, Archibald Borders, James Pritchard, John J. Sweatman, James Marcum, George R. Burgis, Thomas Prince.
Sheriff, Walter Osborn, commissioned January 17, 1845.
Deputy Sheriff, J. W. Hands.
Clerk, George F. Hatcher, Louisa. .
County Attorney, James Fulkerson, do.
Jailer, Garrett See, do.
Coroner, U. Garrett, do.
Constables, J. L. Barns and J. M. Edin, do.
Notaries Public, none.
Surveyor, William M. Fulkerson.
Commissioner of Tax, Allen Prichard.
Attorneys at Law, J. M. Rice, G. V. Goble, Jacob Rice, jr, James Fulkerson, W. M. Fulkerson, Louisa.
Physicians, P. Randall, Z. Cushing, S. F. Yates, Louisa.
Principal Merchants, W. T. Nicholl, & Co., Jones & Callahan, Moore & Miltler, M. Canterberry & Co., F. Moore, B. Burke, Louisa.
[The Kentucky State Register, by Taliaferro Preston Shaffner; Published by Morton & Griswold, 1847; pp. 117/118]
Formed, 1821.
County seat, LOUISA.
Terms of County Court, Fourth Monday in each month, except May and November.
Justices of the Peace, George E. Chadwick, John Crabtree, David Curnett, George Justice, Emmanuel Brammer, Zalter Cushing, Peter Fulkerson, Wm. M'Clure, Isaac Bolt, Archibald Borders, James Pritchard, John J. Sweatman, James Marcum, George R. Burgis, Thomas Prince.
Sheriff, Walter Osborn, commissioned January 17, 1845.
Deputy Sheriff, J. W. Hands.
Clerk, George F. Hatcher, Louisa. .
County Attorney, James Fulkerson, do.
Jailer, Garrett See, do.
Coroner, U. Garrett, do.
Constables, J. L. Barns and J. M. Edin, do.
Notaries Public, none.
Surveyor, William M. Fulkerson.
Commissioner of Tax, Allen Prichard.
Attorneys at Law, J. M. Rice, G. V. Goble, Jacob Rice, jr, James Fulkerson, W. M. Fulkerson, Louisa.
Physicians, P. Randall, Z. Cushing, S. F. Yates, Louisa.
Principal Merchants, W. T. Nicholl, & Co., Jones & Callahan, Moore & Miltler, M. Canterberry & Co., F. Moore, B. Burke, Louisa.
[The Kentucky State Register, by Taliaferro Preston Shaffner; Published by Morton & Griswold, 1847; pp. 117/118]
Location of Deep Oilwells in Lawrence County in 1909
Mouth of Blaine Creek, Lawrence County.
Horseford Creek, Lawrence County.
New Domain Oil and Gas Company, Jason Boggs farm, Canes (Cains) Creek, 6 miles northwest of Blaine, Lawrence County.
New Domain Oil and Gas Company, John Boggs farm, Canes (Cains) Creek, 4 miles northwest of Blaine, Lawrence County.
New Domain Oil and Gas Company, J. P. Cooper farm, Lick Fork of Cherokee Creek, 5 miles northwest of Blaine, Lawrence County.
New Domain Oil and Gas Company, J. A. Young farm, Cherokee Creek, Lawrence County.
Laurel or Broas well, Lower Laurel Creek, Lawrence County.
New Domain Oil and Gas Company, H. H. Gambrill (Gambill) farm, Big Blaine Creek, 1 mile west of Blaine, Lawrence County.
Berry well, mouth of Cane (Cains) Creek, Lawrence County.
New Domain Oil and Gas Company, A. M. Holbrook farm, one-fourth mile northeast of Blaine, Lawrence County.
Griffith Creek, 7 miles southeast of Louisa, Lawrence County.
Frank Crank, Yatesville.
George Carter, near Yatesville.
Hannah Lackey, near Yatesville.
Land & Carter, near Yatesville. (2 wells)
Keffer well, Upper Stinson Creek.
[Economic Geology of the Kenova Quadrangle, Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia, by William Clifton Phalen; Published by Govt. Print. Off., 1909, p. 139]
Horseford Creek, Lawrence County.
New Domain Oil and Gas Company, Jason Boggs farm, Canes (Cains) Creek, 6 miles northwest of Blaine, Lawrence County.
New Domain Oil and Gas Company, John Boggs farm, Canes (Cains) Creek, 4 miles northwest of Blaine, Lawrence County.
New Domain Oil and Gas Company, J. P. Cooper farm, Lick Fork of Cherokee Creek, 5 miles northwest of Blaine, Lawrence County.
New Domain Oil and Gas Company, J. A. Young farm, Cherokee Creek, Lawrence County.
Laurel or Broas well, Lower Laurel Creek, Lawrence County.
New Domain Oil and Gas Company, H. H. Gambrill (Gambill) farm, Big Blaine Creek, 1 mile west of Blaine, Lawrence County.
Berry well, mouth of Cane (Cains) Creek, Lawrence County.
New Domain Oil and Gas Company, A. M. Holbrook farm, one-fourth mile northeast of Blaine, Lawrence County.
Griffith Creek, 7 miles southeast of Louisa, Lawrence County.
Frank Crank, Yatesville.
George Carter, near Yatesville.
Hannah Lackey, near Yatesville.
Land & Carter, near Yatesville. (2 wells)
Keffer well, Upper Stinson Creek.
[Economic Geology of the Kenova Quadrangle, Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia, by William Clifton Phalen; Published by Govt. Print. Off., 1909, p. 139]
They Celebrated The Victory - A Kentucky Postmaster Complains That the Democrats Demolished His Office
Washington, Nov. 8. - The following telegram has been received by the Postmaster-General:
[Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 9, 1889]
"Louisa, Ky., Nov. 7. - Hon. John Wanamaker, P. M. General, Washington, D.C.: I claim protection and redress at the hands of the government. I am the postmaster at this place and had the handsomest, fourth-class office in Northeast Kentucky, surpassing many Presidential offices. My office is this morning completely demolished, being the work of a few persons wanting to let the postmaster here know how Ohio had gone politically. They used high explosives, dynamite and other combustibles. Caved in the front door, broke every window in front of the building, threw open the shutters, and this morning I find my office little or no protection to United States mails, pouches or money order deposits. This being a distributing office the finding of guilty parties will be an easy task for the detective force.The Postmaster-General has instituted an investigation of the matters contained in this telegram.
R. C. McClure, P.M.
[Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 9, 1889]
Sinclair Roberts contests John J. Jordan's seat in the KY House of Representatives
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1854:
Mr. Willingham, from the committee on Privileges and Elections, made the following report, viz:
The committee to whom was referred a resolution of the House of Representatives directing them to ascertain and report whether Sinclair Roberts gave John J. Jordan notice of his, Roberts' intention to contest the right of said Jordan to a seat in this House, as the representative from the county of Lawrence, and whether in consequence thereof, said Jordan incurred any expense or cost, respectfully report:
That it appears from papers submitted to the committee that said Jordan was served with a notice with the name of Sinclair Roberts attached thereto, of his intention to contest the seat of said Jordan. That both parties took depositions, which seemed to have been enclosed to the Clerk of this House; but said Roberts presented no petition and made no further attempt to prosecute the case. Under these circumstances it seems to the committee that Roberts should pay to Jordan the costs and expenses incurred by the latter in consequence of the giving of said notice. It appears to the committee that said Jordan has incurred at least twenty-five dollars costs besides the fees of officers for giving notices and taking depositions to sustain his right to the seat in this House. The commitee submit for the consideration of the House, the following resolution:
Resolved, That the Clerk of this House ascertain from the depositions on file, taken by John J. Jordan to sustain him in his seat in this House, the costs of taking them according to the existing laws, and make a certificate thereof, and deliver the same to said John J. Jordan.
[Journal, Volume 1993, Part 3, By Kentucky. General Assembly. House of Representatives, p. 319]
Mr. Willingham, from the committee on Privileges and Elections, made the following report, viz:
The committee to whom was referred a resolution of the House of Representatives directing them to ascertain and report whether Sinclair Roberts gave John J. Jordan notice of his, Roberts' intention to contest the right of said Jordan to a seat in this House, as the representative from the county of Lawrence, and whether in consequence thereof, said Jordan incurred any expense or cost, respectfully report:
That it appears from papers submitted to the committee that said Jordan was served with a notice with the name of Sinclair Roberts attached thereto, of his intention to contest the seat of said Jordan. That both parties took depositions, which seemed to have been enclosed to the Clerk of this House; but said Roberts presented no petition and made no further attempt to prosecute the case. Under these circumstances it seems to the committee that Roberts should pay to Jordan the costs and expenses incurred by the latter in consequence of the giving of said notice. It appears to the committee that said Jordan has incurred at least twenty-five dollars costs besides the fees of officers for giving notices and taking depositions to sustain his right to the seat in this House. The commitee submit for the consideration of the House, the following resolution:
Resolved, That the Clerk of this House ascertain from the depositions on file, taken by John J. Jordan to sustain him in his seat in this House, the costs of taking them according to the existing laws, and make a certificate thereof, and deliver the same to said John J. Jordan.
[Journal, Volume 1993, Part 3, By Kentucky. General Assembly. House of Representatives, p. 319]
Pigg's Pig - A Kentucky Indictment
The following is a true copy of an indictment found by the grand jury of Lawrence county, Ky., at its October term of the Criminal Court (leaving off the name of the defendant and date)
Lawrence Criminal Court.
Commonwealth of Kentucky
against Indictment.
_____, Defendant.
The grand jury of Lawrence county, in the name and by the authority of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, accuse ____ of the offence of malicious mischief, committed as follows :
The said ____ , on the 10th day of September, A. D., 18__, in the county and circuit aforesaid, did unlawfully, willfully, and maliciously kill and destroy one pig, the personal property of George Pigg, without the consent of said Pigg, the said pig being of value to the aforesaid George Pigg. The pig thus killed weighed about twenty-five pounds, and was a mate to some other pigs that were owned by said George Pigg, which left George Pigg a pig less than he (said Pigg) had of pigs, and thus ruthlessly tore said pig from the society of George Pigg's other pigs, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
A. S. Auxier, Commonwealth's Attorney.
A true bill: O. D. Botner, Foreman.
Filed Nov. . A.D., 18__. G. F. Johnson, Clerk.
[The Washington Law Reporter, 1889, p. 94]
Lawrence Criminal Court.
Commonwealth of Kentucky
against Indictment.
_____, Defendant.
The grand jury of Lawrence county, in the name and by the authority of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, accuse ____ of the offence of malicious mischief, committed as follows :
The said ____ , on the 10th day of September, A. D., 18__, in the county and circuit aforesaid, did unlawfully, willfully, and maliciously kill and destroy one pig, the personal property of George Pigg, without the consent of said Pigg, the said pig being of value to the aforesaid George Pigg. The pig thus killed weighed about twenty-five pounds, and was a mate to some other pigs that were owned by said George Pigg, which left George Pigg a pig less than he (said Pigg) had of pigs, and thus ruthlessly tore said pig from the society of George Pigg's other pigs, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
A. S. Auxier, Commonwealth's Attorney.
A true bill: O. D. Botner, Foreman.
Filed Nov. . A.D., 18__. G. F. Johnson, Clerk.
[The Washington Law Reporter, 1889, p. 94]
Reports by the Lawrence County Board of Health
Reports by the Lawrence County Board of Health for 1901, 1903, 1905 and 1907.
Lawrence County Board of Health:
Dr. M. G. Watson, Dr. J. D. Biggs, A. J. Garred.
Louisa, Ky., July 18, 1901.
To the State Board of Health:
Gentlemen: Within the last four years we have had 2 outbreaks of smallpox in this county, in the following districts or precincts:
Bear Creek and East Fork precincts, with a total of 97 cases and 2 deaths. No hospital or pest house was provided, and the following was our method of management: Quarantined each family when it first appeared, and we were notified of it. Placed guards over them, but found this method very unsatisfactory, and issued orders compelling vaccination in Bear Creek and East Fork precincts and town of Louisa, and by this method it was stamped out in 43 days after the origin of the last outbreak.
The disease was brought to this county from Boyd county, Ky.;
it was not recognized until after many had been exposed. I estimate that 600 vaccinations have been done in the county since the first cases occurred; that 500 or 600 had been previously vaccinated, out of a total population of about 17,000, leaving 15,800 now unprotected.
The total cost of management to the county, including hospital, physicians, vaccinations, guards, nurses, food, etc., for all the cases which have occurred in the time named has been $1,800. The estimated cost to the county in loss of trade and interference of business has been $12,000.
Our chief difficulties in stamping out the disease were: Physicians and laity refusing to recognize it as smallpox and to be vaccinated, and getting the county authorities to co-operate with the Board of Health.
Very respectfully,
J. D. BIGGS, M. D., Secretary.
[Annual Report by Kentucky State Board of Health, 1901, p. 61]
Lawrence County Board of Health: A. W. Bromley, M. D., Louisa, J. D. Biggs, M. D., Louisa, W. M. Sullivan, Esq., Louisa.
LOUISA, KY., August 14, 1903.
To the State Board of Health:
GENTLEMEN:- — Supplementing our report of July 18, 1901, for the preceding four years, during the two years last past, we have had twelve outbreaks of smallpox in the county, with a total of forty-one cases and no deaths.
We have no eruptive hospital, and our method of management was as follows: Isolation; quarantine; vaccination consistently and persistently applied.
The disease was brought to this county in all outbreaks from Boyd county, and was recognized after a few persons had been exposed. In July, 1901, 1,200 persons of our population were protected by vaccination; since that time I estimate that 1,800 persons have been vaccinated, making a total of 4,000 persons now protected by vaccination, out of a total population of 17,000, leaving 75 per cent now unvaccinated.
The total cost of managing the smallpox in the county including hospital, physicians, vaccination, guards, nurses, food, etc., for all the cases which have occurred since my report in 1901 has been $800. The estimated cost to the county in loss of trade and interference with business has been $5,000.
The chief difficulties in stamping out the disease have been the lack of co-operation of the county officials and the people in refusing to be vaccinated.
The health officer in this county receives an annual salary of $100.
Very respectfully, A. W.
BROMLEY, M. D., Secretary.
[Biennial report of the State Board of Health of Kentucky. 1902/03; Published by State Board of Health, 1904; p. 109]
Lawrence County Board of Health.
Louisa. Ky., August 31, 1905.
To the State Board of Health:
Since our last published report two years ago, there have been three outbreaks of smallpox in this county, in Louisa, Webbville and Buchanan, with a total of forty cases and three deaths.
The first case came from Boyd county, Ky., and twenty persons had been exposed to the disease before its character was recognized and reported so that we could take steps to bring it under control.
Of those exposed, ten had been improperly vaccinated; of these, five contracted the disease and none died. Of the thirty exposed who had not been vaccinated all took the disease and three died.
The population of this county is 18,000. At the time of our last report 4,000 had been vaccinated. Since that time it is estimated that 2,000 have procured vaccination, leaving 66% per cent, still unprotected, after nearly eight years of smallpox almost constantly in some section of the State.
We have no eruptive hospital. Our method of managing the disease was vaccination, isolation and strict quarantine.
The total cost of managing the disease for the two years, including hospital, physicians, vaccination, guards, nurses, food and medicine, has been $2,500. The estimated cost in loss of trade and interference with business has been $5,000.
The chief difficulties in stamping out the disease have been making the people believe it was smallpox and keeping them in.
The county health officer is paid a salary of $100 per year, and all of the other members serve gratuitously.
Very respectfully,
A. W. BROMLEY, M. D.,
Secretary.
[Biennial report of the State Board of Health of Kentucky. 1904/05; Published by State Board of Health, 1906; pp. 103/104]
Lawrence County Board of Health.
Louisa, Ky., Dec. 30, 1907.
To the State Board of Health:
Gentlemen: — Since our last published report two years ago there has been no outbreaks of smallpox in this county. We have no eruptive hospital.
The population of this county is 18,000; about 75% have been vaccinated. As nearly as can be ascertained, other cases of preventable diseases have occurred during the two years as follows:
Consumption. — 30 cases, 30 deaths.
Typhoid Fever.— 100 cases, 15 deaths.
Diphtheria. — 10 cases, 2 deaths.
The health of the county has been unusually good so the various members of the profession report. The county health officer is paid $100.
Very respectfully,
A. W. BROMLEY, M. D, Secretary.
[Biennial report of the State Board of Health of Kentucky. 1906/07; Published by State Board of Health, 1908; pp. 102/103]
Lawrence County Board of Health:
Dr. M. G. Watson, Dr. J. D. Biggs, A. J. Garred.
Louisa, Ky., July 18, 1901.
To the State Board of Health:
Gentlemen: Within the last four years we have had 2 outbreaks of smallpox in this county, in the following districts or precincts:
Bear Creek and East Fork precincts, with a total of 97 cases and 2 deaths. No hospital or pest house was provided, and the following was our method of management: Quarantined each family when it first appeared, and we were notified of it. Placed guards over them, but found this method very unsatisfactory, and issued orders compelling vaccination in Bear Creek and East Fork precincts and town of Louisa, and by this method it was stamped out in 43 days after the origin of the last outbreak.
The disease was brought to this county from Boyd county, Ky.;
it was not recognized until after many had been exposed. I estimate that 600 vaccinations have been done in the county since the first cases occurred; that 500 or 600 had been previously vaccinated, out of a total population of about 17,000, leaving 15,800 now unprotected.
The total cost of management to the county, including hospital, physicians, vaccinations, guards, nurses, food, etc., for all the cases which have occurred in the time named has been $1,800. The estimated cost to the county in loss of trade and interference of business has been $12,000.
Our chief difficulties in stamping out the disease were: Physicians and laity refusing to recognize it as smallpox and to be vaccinated, and getting the county authorities to co-operate with the Board of Health.
Very respectfully,
J. D. BIGGS, M. D., Secretary.
[Annual Report by Kentucky State Board of Health, 1901, p. 61]
Lawrence County Board of Health: A. W. Bromley, M. D., Louisa, J. D. Biggs, M. D., Louisa, W. M. Sullivan, Esq., Louisa.
LOUISA, KY., August 14, 1903.
To the State Board of Health:
GENTLEMEN:- — Supplementing our report of July 18, 1901, for the preceding four years, during the two years last past, we have had twelve outbreaks of smallpox in the county, with a total of forty-one cases and no deaths.
We have no eruptive hospital, and our method of management was as follows: Isolation; quarantine; vaccination consistently and persistently applied.
The disease was brought to this county in all outbreaks from Boyd county, and was recognized after a few persons had been exposed. In July, 1901, 1,200 persons of our population were protected by vaccination; since that time I estimate that 1,800 persons have been vaccinated, making a total of 4,000 persons now protected by vaccination, out of a total population of 17,000, leaving 75 per cent now unvaccinated.
The total cost of managing the smallpox in the county including hospital, physicians, vaccination, guards, nurses, food, etc., for all the cases which have occurred since my report in 1901 has been $800. The estimated cost to the county in loss of trade and interference with business has been $5,000.
The chief difficulties in stamping out the disease have been the lack of co-operation of the county officials and the people in refusing to be vaccinated.
The health officer in this county receives an annual salary of $100.
Very respectfully, A. W.
BROMLEY, M. D., Secretary.
[Biennial report of the State Board of Health of Kentucky. 1902/03; Published by State Board of Health, 1904; p. 109]
Lawrence County Board of Health.
Louisa. Ky., August 31, 1905.
To the State Board of Health:
Since our last published report two years ago, there have been three outbreaks of smallpox in this county, in Louisa, Webbville and Buchanan, with a total of forty cases and three deaths.
The first case came from Boyd county, Ky., and twenty persons had been exposed to the disease before its character was recognized and reported so that we could take steps to bring it under control.
Of those exposed, ten had been improperly vaccinated; of these, five contracted the disease and none died. Of the thirty exposed who had not been vaccinated all took the disease and three died.
The population of this county is 18,000. At the time of our last report 4,000 had been vaccinated. Since that time it is estimated that 2,000 have procured vaccination, leaving 66% per cent, still unprotected, after nearly eight years of smallpox almost constantly in some section of the State.
We have no eruptive hospital. Our method of managing the disease was vaccination, isolation and strict quarantine.
The total cost of managing the disease for the two years, including hospital, physicians, vaccination, guards, nurses, food and medicine, has been $2,500. The estimated cost in loss of trade and interference with business has been $5,000.
The chief difficulties in stamping out the disease have been making the people believe it was smallpox and keeping them in.
The county health officer is paid a salary of $100 per year, and all of the other members serve gratuitously.
Very respectfully,
A. W. BROMLEY, M. D.,
Secretary.
[Biennial report of the State Board of Health of Kentucky. 1904/05; Published by State Board of Health, 1906; pp. 103/104]
Lawrence County Board of Health.
Louisa, Ky., Dec. 30, 1907.
To the State Board of Health:
Gentlemen: — Since our last published report two years ago there has been no outbreaks of smallpox in this county. We have no eruptive hospital.
The population of this county is 18,000; about 75% have been vaccinated. As nearly as can be ascertained, other cases of preventable diseases have occurred during the two years as follows:
Consumption. — 30 cases, 30 deaths.
Typhoid Fever.— 100 cases, 15 deaths.
Diphtheria. — 10 cases, 2 deaths.
The health of the county has been unusually good so the various members of the profession report. The county health officer is paid $100.
Very respectfully,
A. W. BROMLEY, M. D, Secretary.
[Biennial report of the State Board of Health of Kentucky. 1906/07; Published by State Board of Health, 1908; pp. 102/103]
Swetman v Holbrook
SWETMAN v. HOLBROOK(Filed January 16, 1897— Not to be reported.)
1. One acquires title by acrretion when real estate owned by him is gradually added to by alluvial deposit. But when a stream which forms the line between two estates suddenly changes its course, as by a freshet, the original thread of the stream continues to mark the line between the estates: and therefore, in this action, involving the title to a point of land which had thus been cut off from the main body of plaintiff's land and joined to the land of defendant, it was misleading to instruct the jury as to title by accretion.
2. Adverse Possession - It was error to give an instruction to the jury from which they might have believed that it was necessary for plaintiff to show, in order to recover, that he had been in the "actual, continual adverse possession of the tract of land" for fifteen years next before the suit was brought. If he acquired title to the land by possession or by deed, he might have been out of possession for any period short of fifteen years next before the suit was brought, and defendant might have been in possession for the same period, and still he would have been entitled to recover.
3. Testimony as to land that had been added by accretion to plaintiff's land at some other point on the stream than that in controversy was incompetent, but there seems to have been no objection thereto.
F. R. Moore, J. M. Riffe, H. T. Burns and Wm. H. and M. J. Holt for appellant.
G. E. Fugett, G. W. Skaggs and Alexander Lackey for appellee.
Appeal from Lawrence Circuit
Opinion of the court by Judge Paynter.
Since 1833 the appellant has lived within a boundary of land situated on the north side of Big Blaine creek in Lawrence county, claiming it as his own. Some time after he had thus taken possession of the land his father made him a deed thereto, which described the southern boundary line of the land as follows, to wit: "Beginning on top of the bank of Blaine on the northwest side of the upper end of the farm now occupied by C. L. Sweatman on a stone set up for a corner; thence three poles to the middle of Blaine; thence with the meanders of said creek * * * to the mouth of Hood's fork of Blaine; thence, etc.," giving the courses and distances of the other lines of the tract.
Those under whom appellee Holbrook claim owned bind on South side of Big Blaine, opposite that belonging to Sweatman, claiming as did Sweatman to the meanders of Big Blaine creek. In fact the deeds conveying land on the south side of the creek call for C. L. Sweatman's line.
Some time between the close of the late civil war and 1876 there was a freshet in Big Blaine creek that caused it to leave its original channel and make a new one through the lands of Sweatman, thus cutting off a point of his land and leaving it on the south side of the new channel. Upon this point thus cut off trees were left standing, and which were remaining on the point when this cause was tried.
The petition alleges that Holbrook has wrongfully taken possession of the land, and Sweatman asks to have it restored to him. The land in controversy was on the north side of the creek before the freshet, and it is not pretended that Holbrook or those under whom he claims owned or had possession of any of the land which was situated on the north side of the creek as the channel originally existed. The witnesses for both plaintiff and defendant who testify in relation thereto prove that the point of land in controversy was left on the south side by the creek changing its channel in the manner stated. The point was not added to the south side of the creek by accretion.
When one acquires title by accretion is where real estate possessed is gradually added to by alluvial deposit. When a stream changes its course so as to perceptibly cut off a point of the property of a land owner and leave it beyond the thread of the stream the ownership will not be changed. There are two acres and three roods in controversy. The original channel still exists. From the undisputed testimony the land wasadded to the south side of the thread of the stream not by accretion but by
avulsion.
If the change is violent and visible, and arises from a known cause, such as a freshet or a cut through which a new channel is formed, the original thread of the stream continues to mark the limit between the estates." (Gould on Waters, section 159.)
The only way Sweatman has been deprived of his right to the possession of the land in controversy, if at all, is by continuous, adverse possession. While it was proper for the court to tell the jury the effect of the freshet in leaving the parcel of land on the south side of the thread of the present channel as to its ownership, it was improper to give instructions Nos. 4 and 5 as to the subject of title by accretion. The undisputed facts, as we have said, show the land was not added by
accretion; therefore, it was misleading to the jury to instruct them on that question. Besides, undue prominence was given in these instructions to a question not involved, because instructions 4 and 5 as copied in the record are literally the same. They were calculated to mislead the jury.
As instruction No. 1 was offered by the appellant no reversal could be had because the court gave it. It is inartificially drawn. Under it the jury might have believed that before Sweatman was entitled to recover it was necessary for him to show that he had been in the "actual, continuous, adverse possession of the tract of land" for fifteen years next before the suit was brought.
If he acquired the title to the land by possession or the deed from his father, he might have been out of his possession for fourteen years and 364 days next before the suit was brought, and for the same period it might have been in the possession of Holbrook and still he would have been entitled to recover. There seems to have
been no objection to the admission of testimony as to land which had been added by accretion to Sweatman's land at a point on the creek other than the one in controversy; in fact it is proven by appellant and his witnesses. Of course this testimony was incompetent and misleading.
The fact that Sweatman gained land by accretion at another point on the creek did not affect his title to the land which had been left on the south side of the stream by the freshet.
The judgment is reversed, with directions to grant appellant a new trial and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The court delivered the following response to petition for rehearing February 25, 1897:
The court understand that Sweatman is seeking to recover the land which lies between the thread of the channel of Big Blaine creek as it ran before the freshet and the thread of its present channel — that is to say the point of land which was left on the south side by avulsion. If this point of land has been added to by accretion since the avulsion then Sweatman became the owner of the soil thus added by accretion much so as if such addition had been made by accretion on the other side of Blaine, opposite the point in question, for he owned the land on both sides of the new channel at that point.
The court on another trial of the case can give an instruction embodying the principle we have stated as to the right of Sweatman to the land which may have been added by accretion to the point which was left on the south side by Blaine changing its channel in the manner stated.
The deed of C. L. Sweatman to A. M. Holbrook purports to convey an undivided interest in certain lands, and it was made before the freshet. It calls to run to the mouth of Spring branch, "thence meandering Blaine to the beginning," and conveys an interest in land on the south side of Blaine creek.
[The Kentucky Law Reporter, By Kentucky Court of Appeals, Published by G. A. Lewis, 1897, V. 18, pp. 870-873]
1. One acquires title by acrretion when real estate owned by him is gradually added to by alluvial deposit. But when a stream which forms the line between two estates suddenly changes its course, as by a freshet, the original thread of the stream continues to mark the line between the estates: and therefore, in this action, involving the title to a point of land which had thus been cut off from the main body of plaintiff's land and joined to the land of defendant, it was misleading to instruct the jury as to title by accretion.
2. Adverse Possession - It was error to give an instruction to the jury from which they might have believed that it was necessary for plaintiff to show, in order to recover, that he had been in the "actual, continual adverse possession of the tract of land" for fifteen years next before the suit was brought. If he acquired title to the land by possession or by deed, he might have been out of possession for any period short of fifteen years next before the suit was brought, and defendant might have been in possession for the same period, and still he would have been entitled to recover.
3. Testimony as to land that had been added by accretion to plaintiff's land at some other point on the stream than that in controversy was incompetent, but there seems to have been no objection thereto.
F. R. Moore, J. M. Riffe, H. T. Burns and Wm. H. and M. J. Holt for appellant.
G. E. Fugett, G. W. Skaggs and Alexander Lackey for appellee.
Appeal from Lawrence Circuit
Opinion of the court by Judge Paynter.
Since 1833 the appellant has lived within a boundary of land situated on the north side of Big Blaine creek in Lawrence county, claiming it as his own. Some time after he had thus taken possession of the land his father made him a deed thereto, which described the southern boundary line of the land as follows, to wit: "Beginning on top of the bank of Blaine on the northwest side of the upper end of the farm now occupied by C. L. Sweatman on a stone set up for a corner; thence three poles to the middle of Blaine; thence with the meanders of said creek * * * to the mouth of Hood's fork of Blaine; thence, etc.," giving the courses and distances of the other lines of the tract.
Those under whom appellee Holbrook claim owned bind on South side of Big Blaine, opposite that belonging to Sweatman, claiming as did Sweatman to the meanders of Big Blaine creek. In fact the deeds conveying land on the south side of the creek call for C. L. Sweatman's line.
Some time between the close of the late civil war and 1876 there was a freshet in Big Blaine creek that caused it to leave its original channel and make a new one through the lands of Sweatman, thus cutting off a point of his land and leaving it on the south side of the new channel. Upon this point thus cut off trees were left standing, and which were remaining on the point when this cause was tried.
The petition alleges that Holbrook has wrongfully taken possession of the land, and Sweatman asks to have it restored to him. The land in controversy was on the north side of the creek before the freshet, and it is not pretended that Holbrook or those under whom he claims owned or had possession of any of the land which was situated on the north side of the creek as the channel originally existed. The witnesses for both plaintiff and defendant who testify in relation thereto prove that the point of land in controversy was left on the south side by the creek changing its channel in the manner stated. The point was not added to the south side of the creek by accretion.
When one acquires title by accretion is where real estate possessed is gradually added to by alluvial deposit. When a stream changes its course so as to perceptibly cut off a point of the property of a land owner and leave it beyond the thread of the stream the ownership will not be changed. There are two acres and three roods in controversy. The original channel still exists. From the undisputed testimony the land wasadded to the south side of the thread of the stream not by accretion but by
avulsion.
If the change is violent and visible, and arises from a known cause, such as a freshet or a cut through which a new channel is formed, the original thread of the stream continues to mark the limit between the estates." (Gould on Waters, section 159.)
The only way Sweatman has been deprived of his right to the possession of the land in controversy, if at all, is by continuous, adverse possession. While it was proper for the court to tell the jury the effect of the freshet in leaving the parcel of land on the south side of the thread of the present channel as to its ownership, it was improper to give instructions Nos. 4 and 5 as to the subject of title by accretion. The undisputed facts, as we have said, show the land was not added by
accretion; therefore, it was misleading to the jury to instruct them on that question. Besides, undue prominence was given in these instructions to a question not involved, because instructions 4 and 5 as copied in the record are literally the same. They were calculated to mislead the jury.
As instruction No. 1 was offered by the appellant no reversal could be had because the court gave it. It is inartificially drawn. Under it the jury might have believed that before Sweatman was entitled to recover it was necessary for him to show that he had been in the "actual, continuous, adverse possession of the tract of land" for fifteen years next before the suit was brought.
If he acquired the title to the land by possession or the deed from his father, he might have been out of his possession for fourteen years and 364 days next before the suit was brought, and for the same period it might have been in the possession of Holbrook and still he would have been entitled to recover. There seems to have
been no objection to the admission of testimony as to land which had been added by accretion to Sweatman's land at a point on the creek other than the one in controversy; in fact it is proven by appellant and his witnesses. Of course this testimony was incompetent and misleading.
The fact that Sweatman gained land by accretion at another point on the creek did not affect his title to the land which had been left on the south side of the stream by the freshet.
The judgment is reversed, with directions to grant appellant a new trial and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The court delivered the following response to petition for rehearing February 25, 1897:
The court understand that Sweatman is seeking to recover the land which lies between the thread of the channel of Big Blaine creek as it ran before the freshet and the thread of its present channel — that is to say the point of land which was left on the south side by avulsion. If this point of land has been added to by accretion since the avulsion then Sweatman became the owner of the soil thus added by accretion much so as if such addition had been made by accretion on the other side of Blaine, opposite the point in question, for he owned the land on both sides of the new channel at that point.
The court on another trial of the case can give an instruction embodying the principle we have stated as to the right of Sweatman to the land which may have been added by accretion to the point which was left on the south side by Blaine changing its channel in the manner stated.
The deed of C. L. Sweatman to A. M. Holbrook purports to convey an undivided interest in certain lands, and it was made before the freshet. It calls to run to the mouth of Spring branch, "thence meandering Blaine to the beginning," and conveys an interest in land on the south side of Blaine creek.
[The Kentucky Law Reporter, By Kentucky Court of Appeals, Published by G. A. Lewis, 1897, V. 18, pp. 870-873]
Holbrook et al. v. Fyffe
HOLBROOK et al. v. FYFFE. (Court of Appeals of Kentucky. April 30, 1915)
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lawrence County. Action by Nancy Fyffe, by her next friend, against J. F. Holbrook and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed. W. D. O'Neal, Jr., of Louisa, for appellants. M. S. Burns, of Louisa, for appellee.
HURT, J. This suit was brought in the Lawrence circuit court by Nancy Fyffe, through her next friend, Pleasant Skaggs, against her son-in-law, J. H. Holbrook, and the husband of her granddaughter, N. W. Fraley, and the Louisa National Bank. Nancy Fyffe is a woman near 70 years of age, and whose husband, Merideth Fyffe, about 17 or 18 years ago, having become enamored of other women, caused his wife, Nancy Fyffe, to be adjudged a lunatic, and sent to the Eastern Asylum for the Insane, and thereafter lived with another woman. Nancy remained in the asylum for the insane for about one year, when her son-in-law, J. H. Holbrook, procured her release as a harmless lunatic, and brought her back to the neighborhood of her old home, which was on the headwaters of Blaine creek, in Lawrence county.
Her husband refused to permit her to live with him, or to render her any aid or assistance in any way, and, taking the strange woman with whom he lived, he went into another county, and has since resided there with the woman. To these circumstances and her husband's treatment of her, by habits of drinking and association with lewd women, and by desertion of her, before she was adjudged a lunatic, is attributed her loss of rationality.
Thirteen or 14 years ago she returned to the asylum for the Insane again, but it does not appear how long she was confined in the asylum at that time. Her husband owned a farm on Blaine creek, where his son, Milliard Fyffe, lived, and some times Nancy Fyffe resided with him, and at other times with the appellant Holbrook, and at other times with a son-in-law, whose name was Ferguson, and, also, with Pleasant Skaggs, another son-in-law, who is her next friend in this suit, and at other times among other relatives and friends, without any particular place of abode.
Several years ago her husband, for the purpose of enabling his daughter, Ida Holbrook, wife of appellant, to become a surety upon his bond in some kind of a transaction relating to the sale or making of whisky, for the alleged consideration of one dollar, conveyed the farm to Ida Holbrook. She, however, does not seem to have ever set up any claim to the farm, or to have made use of it in any way, by reason of the conveyance to her, and it really does not appear that she knew at the time of the conveyance that it had been made.
Several years ago the appellant Holbrook removed with his family from that neighborhood to Greenup county, where he has since resided. Nancy Fyffe did not join in the conveyance to her daughter Ida Holbrook, and it does not appear that she had any knowledge of such conveyance, and retained her potential right of dower in the land, probably lived upon it from time to time as her vagaries of mind might lead her to do. She also lived with her daughter, the wife of Pleasant Skaggs, two or three years at one time, and her son Milliard Fyffe paid her board.
In the year 1913, her husband came to the neighborhood, and there is some proof of some conversation he had with her, in which he was advising her to sell her interest in the farm. Milliard Fyffe and the appellant Holbrook, and probably other members of the family, arranged among themselves to sell the land to one Noah Skaggs for $2,000. It being necessary to secure Nancy Fyffe's signature to and acknowledgment of the deed to effect the sale, Holbrook made a promise to her that, if she would do so, he would take care of her and treat her in a humane manner as long as she lived, and give her a decent burial at her death. While the exact facts in regard to the transaction are not shown by the record, it seems that it was arranged by her son, and probably her husband and Holbrook, that Holbrook was to receive $600 of the price to be received for the land, and which he was to receive and use in providing for Nancy Fyffe as long as she lived. The sale was effected to Noah Skaggs, and he paid over to Holbrook $600 in money, and gave notes to the amount of $700, which are held by Milliard Fyffe : but who received the other $700 of the purchase price of the land does not appear. Holbrook insists that the $600 was not all to be applied in providing for the appellee Fyffe, but that some portion of it represented his interest in the land. It is, however, very apparent that he nor his wife had any real interest in the land ; but, on account of the conveyance by her father to his wife of the land, it was necessary for them to join in the deed to effect the sale.
Nancy Fyffe was taken to Louisa by Holbrook, and there executed the deed; but no money was paid or offered to her. Holbrook insists that he made a contract with the old woman to take care of and provide for her at his home in Greenup county, while it is contended upon her part that it was agreed that he should only provide her a home at his house.
Holbrook took her, immediately after the execution of the deed, with him to his house in Greenup county, and she remained there about two months. She became very much dissatisfied with residing at his home, and talked continuously of her desire to return to the neighborhood of her old home on Blaine creek. Her conversation upon that subject was her continual theme, both to members of Holbrook's family, and to him, and to such other persons as she came in contact with. She became so dissatisfied with her surroundings that she went to the extremity of butting her head against the walls, and beating herself in the face with her fists. Holbrook, as he says, at her request, came to Blaine creek to make arrangements to find her a home, and with some one with whom she would be satisfied to live, and that he offered her son-in-law Pleasant Skaggs and his wife $300 to take care of her during her lifetime, but they would not agree to do so, unless he would pay them the $600 which he had received for that purpose. He then entered into an arrangement with N. W. Fraley, who had recently married a granddaughter of appellee, to provide her a home and care for her during her lifetime, and consummated the arrangement by paying to Fraley $300 of the $600 which he had received from the purchase price of the farm. He then returned home and informed Mrs. Fyffe of the arrangement that he had made, and the proof shows that she was very much pleased with it.
When he brought her to Louisa, Fraley met them with a team to convey her to his house. She went very willingly with him: but, when they had come to the home of her sister on Blaine creek, she expressed the desire of spending two nights with her sister, which Fraley permitted her to do, promising to return for her at the expiration of that time. He did return, accompanied by his wife, when she refused positively to go with him, and went to the house of her daughter, the wife of Pleasant Skaggs, where she has resided since that time.
The contention of appellee is that Fraley did not have any house to which to take her at the time, and did not own any home; but it seems that he made an arrangement with his father, by which he procured a dwelling house on his father's land, into which he very soon thereafter moved. Fraley deposited the $300, which he received from Holbrook, in the Louisa National Bank, and thereafter checked out $30 of it. The record shows conclusively that the appellee, from disease, old age, or grief, has been reduced to that state of mental imbecility which disqualifies her for the prudential management of her affairs, and that she is entirely incompetent to transact any business, or to deal with any one at arm's length, and is clearly mentally unbalanced. The proof further shows that Holbrook and his family treated her well while at his house, and exerted themselves to induce her to remain there, and also shows that her daughter Mrs. Skaggs, and her husband, did not influence her to come to their house to live, or to refuse to live with Fraley, but that they advised her to go and live with Fraley.
When the suit was Filed, in which the plaintiff alleged the setting apart of the $600 for her benefit, it was also alleged that Holbrook, without her consent and against her will, made the arrangement with Fraley and paid to him the $300 of the money, and without her consent took her and delivered her into the custody of Fraley at Louisa, and that the arrangement with Fraley was a fraud upon the rights of appellee, and asked a judgment against Fraley, and also against Holbrook, for $600; also, alleged that the S300 paid to Fraley was deposited in the appellant bank, and procured an order of attachment, which was executed upon this fund In the bank. The appellant bank first answered that it had on deposit $300 to the credit of Fraley. Thereafter it offered to file an amended answer, and petition to be made a party, in which it alleged that some employé of the bank, who had no knowledge of the attachment having been served, had paid the $270 out upon checks given by Fraley, and that Fraley was insolvent, and that he was a housekeeper with a family, and the money was exempt from attachment. The court, however, refused to allow this paper to be filed. Fraley filed a separate answer, in which he denied any contract with the appellee, but set out his contract with Holbrook, and averred his willingness to perform it, and the refusal of the plaintiff to allow him to do so. Holbrook pleaded his readiness to perform his obligation to provide a home for the appellee at his house, and that he had requested her frequently to come and live at his house, but that she refused to do so.
While the suit was pending, the court entered an order permitting Holbrook to secure a home for the appellee, and to provide her with a living, and gave him 30 days within which to do so. It seems that he has made an effort to get her to return to his house, but she refused, declaring that she preferred death to doing so.
The case being submitted upon the pleadings and evidence, the court sustained the attachment on the $270 deposited in the appellant bank by Fraley, and directed the bank to pay it to the receiver of the court, and rendered a judgment against Holbrook for $600, but adjudged that, when the $270 should be paid, it should be credited on the $600 adjudged against Holbrook. The receiver was directed to collect the remainder of the $600, and to pay it out to the person keeping and caring for appellee, at the rate of $10 per month, until the further order of the court, and directing the cause to be continued and kept on the docket of the court, to enable the court to properly care for the unfortunate woman. To this judgment, Holbrook, Fraley, and the Louisa National Bank excepted, and prayed an appeal to this court [1,2] The appellant Fraley in no place pleads that the $270 was property to which he was entitled to hold as exempt as a person with a family under the laws, and, if he had done so, it could have availed him nothing, as it will be hereinafter set out.
Such a plea, if made by Fraley himself, could not avail him anything and could not be that reason the court was not in error to the prejudice of the Louisa National Bank in refusing to permit the filing of its amended answer and petition to be made a party. The record shows that it had been duly served as a garnishee, and by the order of attachment issued In the case, and thereafter by the negligence or fault of some employé, or by some officer of the bank, honored the checks of Fraley drawn upon it, and paid out this money, when Fraley, no doubt, by drawing checks upon the fund after he had been sued, and after the order of attachment had been issued, was doubtless attempting to perpetrate a fraud upon the appellee. The attachment created a lien upon the $270, and the bank had no right to pay it out thereafter, until the order of attachment should be discharged, or until an order of court was entered giving it directions as to whom it should pay the money, and it cannot now complain of its own negligence in allowing Fraley to get the money away from it, to the prejudice of the rights of the appellee. [3, 4]
While the appellant Holbrook claims in his testimony that he had a contract with the appellee, by which, if she would sign and acknowledge the deed to the farm, he would receive $600 of the purchase price of the farm, and in consideration of her signing the deed he would maintain her at his house as long as she lived, this statement is not very impressive in the light of the fact that the interest which the appellee was conveying away in the farm was her property, and her only means of support, in her helpless condition, and that, through the arrangements effected by the parties to the transaction at that time, the money was not paid to or received by the appellee, but went to Holbrook.
All of the facts and circumstances in the evidence conclusively show that an arrangement was made by the parties interested in the farm and its sale, and the members of the family, that this $600 was a fund set apart by all of them and put into the hands of Holbrook for the support and maintenance of appellee. It is very apparent that all of those engaged in the transaction recognized the hopeless mental imbecility of the appellee, or else she would have been intrusted with her own funds, instead of the funds being placed in the hands of Holbrook. It appears to have been an express parol trust, and that Holbrook was made the trustee to receive and hold the funds, and use them for the support and maintenance of appellee. Doubtless, to induce her to sign the deed, he held out to her the prospect of a home at his house for the remainder of her life. Holbrook's claim to having an interest in the land himself is perfectly idle. It is, also, futile to insist upon the enforcement of contracts alleged to have been entered into with one like the appellee, who was totally incapable, from the evidence, to have made a contract, and neither should be bound thereby.
Trust on personal property may be created by parol and proved by parol. Perry v. Riding, 9 Ky. Law Rep. 636; Berry v. Norris, 1 Duv. 303; Barkley v. Lane, 6 Bush, 588.
Under circumstances such as those related above, although appellant Holbrook and his family might have in good faith undertaken to treat the appellee well in their home, yet if he was unable to make her satisfied to remain there at his home, and could not procure her to do so on account of her vagaries arising from her unsoundness of mind, it would be inequitable to permit him to keep the $600, which arose from a sale of the appellee's potential right of dower in the farm on Blaine creek. To do so would deprive the appellee of her property, and all of the means which might be used in caring for and making her comfortable. If, on account of her imbecility or insanity, she is happy to live in the house of her daughter on Blaine creek, and is not satisfied to live with appellant Holbrook, or with Fraley, and to compel her to do so would destroy what little happiness there may be in store for her, although her conduct in refusing to live at these places should be irrational, the chancellor, seeking to do that which is best for her, would not compel her to reside at either the house of Holbrook or that of Fraley. It does not appear, neither does Holbrook contend, that he had any contract with any rational person of the family that, in consideration of the $600, he would only provide for her at his own house.
...
[7] It Is insisted for the appellant Fraley that he had no contract with the appellee, and did not receive anything from her, and for that reason she was not entitled to any Judgment against him, nor to recover the funds which he had on deposit with the Louisa National Bank, and the bank, by it's amended answer and petition, which it offered to file, makes the same insistence. The proof in the case, however, shows that Fraley was present at the conversation between Holbrook and Pleasant Skaggs and his wife, in which the fact that Holbrook had the $600 arising from the sale of the land to be expended for the benefit of appellee, and heard the offer which Holbrook made to Skaggs and wife to pay the $300 of the money to them to care for the appellee as long as she lived, and their refusal to do so, when Holbrook had received $600 for that purpose, but offered to do so if he would pay them the $600. Fraley then proposed to Holbrook to accept the proposition which Holbrook had made to Skaggs and wife. He then received the $300 with full knowledge of the fact that it was part of a fund held in trust by Holbrook for the benefit of the appellee.
One who receives title from a trustee with notice of the trust holds the title subject to the trust. Cox v. Osbourn, l A. K. Marsh. 311; Rogers v. Reid, 14 Ky. Law Rep. 811.
Fraley received this money impressed with the trust, and with knowledge that there was a trust upon it for the benefit of appellee, and the court did not err in requiring that portion of the fund to be paid by the bank to the receiver, because the proof shows that Fraley had done nothing by which he was entitled to any portion of it. No personal judgment was rendered against Fraley, but he should have been required to pay the $30, which he had expended of this fund, to the receiver ; but no cross-appeal has been taken by the appellee. Under the circumstances existing in the case at bar, the judgment of the court below seems to have done substantial justice between the parties, and it is therefore affirmed.
Hannah, J., not sitting
[The Southwestern Reporter, publ. by West Publishing Company, 1915, v. 175 c.3, pp. 977 - 980]
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lawrence County. Action by Nancy Fyffe, by her next friend, against J. F. Holbrook and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed. W. D. O'Neal, Jr., of Louisa, for appellants. M. S. Burns, of Louisa, for appellee.
HURT, J. This suit was brought in the Lawrence circuit court by Nancy Fyffe, through her next friend, Pleasant Skaggs, against her son-in-law, J. H. Holbrook, and the husband of her granddaughter, N. W. Fraley, and the Louisa National Bank. Nancy Fyffe is a woman near 70 years of age, and whose husband, Merideth Fyffe, about 17 or 18 years ago, having become enamored of other women, caused his wife, Nancy Fyffe, to be adjudged a lunatic, and sent to the Eastern Asylum for the Insane, and thereafter lived with another woman. Nancy remained in the asylum for the insane for about one year, when her son-in-law, J. H. Holbrook, procured her release as a harmless lunatic, and brought her back to the neighborhood of her old home, which was on the headwaters of Blaine creek, in Lawrence county.
Her husband refused to permit her to live with him, or to render her any aid or assistance in any way, and, taking the strange woman with whom he lived, he went into another county, and has since resided there with the woman. To these circumstances and her husband's treatment of her, by habits of drinking and association with lewd women, and by desertion of her, before she was adjudged a lunatic, is attributed her loss of rationality.
Thirteen or 14 years ago she returned to the asylum for the Insane again, but it does not appear how long she was confined in the asylum at that time. Her husband owned a farm on Blaine creek, where his son, Milliard Fyffe, lived, and some times Nancy Fyffe resided with him, and at other times with the appellant Holbrook, and at other times with a son-in-law, whose name was Ferguson, and, also, with Pleasant Skaggs, another son-in-law, who is her next friend in this suit, and at other times among other relatives and friends, without any particular place of abode.
Several years ago her husband, for the purpose of enabling his daughter, Ida Holbrook, wife of appellant, to become a surety upon his bond in some kind of a transaction relating to the sale or making of whisky, for the alleged consideration of one dollar, conveyed the farm to Ida Holbrook. She, however, does not seem to have ever set up any claim to the farm, or to have made use of it in any way, by reason of the conveyance to her, and it really does not appear that she knew at the time of the conveyance that it had been made.
Several years ago the appellant Holbrook removed with his family from that neighborhood to Greenup county, where he has since resided. Nancy Fyffe did not join in the conveyance to her daughter Ida Holbrook, and it does not appear that she had any knowledge of such conveyance, and retained her potential right of dower in the land, probably lived upon it from time to time as her vagaries of mind might lead her to do. She also lived with her daughter, the wife of Pleasant Skaggs, two or three years at one time, and her son Milliard Fyffe paid her board.
In the year 1913, her husband came to the neighborhood, and there is some proof of some conversation he had with her, in which he was advising her to sell her interest in the farm. Milliard Fyffe and the appellant Holbrook, and probably other members of the family, arranged among themselves to sell the land to one Noah Skaggs for $2,000. It being necessary to secure Nancy Fyffe's signature to and acknowledgment of the deed to effect the sale, Holbrook made a promise to her that, if she would do so, he would take care of her and treat her in a humane manner as long as she lived, and give her a decent burial at her death. While the exact facts in regard to the transaction are not shown by the record, it seems that it was arranged by her son, and probably her husband and Holbrook, that Holbrook was to receive $600 of the price to be received for the land, and which he was to receive and use in providing for Nancy Fyffe as long as she lived. The sale was effected to Noah Skaggs, and he paid over to Holbrook $600 in money, and gave notes to the amount of $700, which are held by Milliard Fyffe : but who received the other $700 of the purchase price of the land does not appear. Holbrook insists that the $600 was not all to be applied in providing for the appellee Fyffe, but that some portion of it represented his interest in the land. It is, however, very apparent that he nor his wife had any real interest in the land ; but, on account of the conveyance by her father to his wife of the land, it was necessary for them to join in the deed to effect the sale.
Nancy Fyffe was taken to Louisa by Holbrook, and there executed the deed; but no money was paid or offered to her. Holbrook insists that he made a contract with the old woman to take care of and provide for her at his home in Greenup county, while it is contended upon her part that it was agreed that he should only provide her a home at his house.
Holbrook took her, immediately after the execution of the deed, with him to his house in Greenup county, and she remained there about two months. She became very much dissatisfied with residing at his home, and talked continuously of her desire to return to the neighborhood of her old home on Blaine creek. Her conversation upon that subject was her continual theme, both to members of Holbrook's family, and to him, and to such other persons as she came in contact with. She became so dissatisfied with her surroundings that she went to the extremity of butting her head against the walls, and beating herself in the face with her fists. Holbrook, as he says, at her request, came to Blaine creek to make arrangements to find her a home, and with some one with whom she would be satisfied to live, and that he offered her son-in-law Pleasant Skaggs and his wife $300 to take care of her during her lifetime, but they would not agree to do so, unless he would pay them the $600 which he had received for that purpose. He then entered into an arrangement with N. W. Fraley, who had recently married a granddaughter of appellee, to provide her a home and care for her during her lifetime, and consummated the arrangement by paying to Fraley $300 of the $600 which he had received from the purchase price of the farm. He then returned home and informed Mrs. Fyffe of the arrangement that he had made, and the proof shows that she was very much pleased with it.
When he brought her to Louisa, Fraley met them with a team to convey her to his house. She went very willingly with him: but, when they had come to the home of her sister on Blaine creek, she expressed the desire of spending two nights with her sister, which Fraley permitted her to do, promising to return for her at the expiration of that time. He did return, accompanied by his wife, when she refused positively to go with him, and went to the house of her daughter, the wife of Pleasant Skaggs, where she has resided since that time.
The contention of appellee is that Fraley did not have any house to which to take her at the time, and did not own any home; but it seems that he made an arrangement with his father, by which he procured a dwelling house on his father's land, into which he very soon thereafter moved. Fraley deposited the $300, which he received from Holbrook, in the Louisa National Bank, and thereafter checked out $30 of it. The record shows conclusively that the appellee, from disease, old age, or grief, has been reduced to that state of mental imbecility which disqualifies her for the prudential management of her affairs, and that she is entirely incompetent to transact any business, or to deal with any one at arm's length, and is clearly mentally unbalanced. The proof further shows that Holbrook and his family treated her well while at his house, and exerted themselves to induce her to remain there, and also shows that her daughter Mrs. Skaggs, and her husband, did not influence her to come to their house to live, or to refuse to live with Fraley, but that they advised her to go and live with Fraley.
When the suit was Filed, in which the plaintiff alleged the setting apart of the $600 for her benefit, it was also alleged that Holbrook, without her consent and against her will, made the arrangement with Fraley and paid to him the $300 of the money, and without her consent took her and delivered her into the custody of Fraley at Louisa, and that the arrangement with Fraley was a fraud upon the rights of appellee, and asked a judgment against Fraley, and also against Holbrook, for $600; also, alleged that the S300 paid to Fraley was deposited in the appellant bank, and procured an order of attachment, which was executed upon this fund In the bank. The appellant bank first answered that it had on deposit $300 to the credit of Fraley. Thereafter it offered to file an amended answer, and petition to be made a party, in which it alleged that some employé of the bank, who had no knowledge of the attachment having been served, had paid the $270 out upon checks given by Fraley, and that Fraley was insolvent, and that he was a housekeeper with a family, and the money was exempt from attachment. The court, however, refused to allow this paper to be filed. Fraley filed a separate answer, in which he denied any contract with the appellee, but set out his contract with Holbrook, and averred his willingness to perform it, and the refusal of the plaintiff to allow him to do so. Holbrook pleaded his readiness to perform his obligation to provide a home for the appellee at his house, and that he had requested her frequently to come and live at his house, but that she refused to do so.
While the suit was pending, the court entered an order permitting Holbrook to secure a home for the appellee, and to provide her with a living, and gave him 30 days within which to do so. It seems that he has made an effort to get her to return to his house, but she refused, declaring that she preferred death to doing so.
The case being submitted upon the pleadings and evidence, the court sustained the attachment on the $270 deposited in the appellant bank by Fraley, and directed the bank to pay it to the receiver of the court, and rendered a judgment against Holbrook for $600, but adjudged that, when the $270 should be paid, it should be credited on the $600 adjudged against Holbrook. The receiver was directed to collect the remainder of the $600, and to pay it out to the person keeping and caring for appellee, at the rate of $10 per month, until the further order of the court, and directing the cause to be continued and kept on the docket of the court, to enable the court to properly care for the unfortunate woman. To this judgment, Holbrook, Fraley, and the Louisa National Bank excepted, and prayed an appeal to this court [1,2] The appellant Fraley in no place pleads that the $270 was property to which he was entitled to hold as exempt as a person with a family under the laws, and, if he had done so, it could have availed him nothing, as it will be hereinafter set out.
Such a plea, if made by Fraley himself, could not avail him anything and could not be that reason the court was not in error to the prejudice of the Louisa National Bank in refusing to permit the filing of its amended answer and petition to be made a party. The record shows that it had been duly served as a garnishee, and by the order of attachment issued In the case, and thereafter by the negligence or fault of some employé, or by some officer of the bank, honored the checks of Fraley drawn upon it, and paid out this money, when Fraley, no doubt, by drawing checks upon the fund after he had been sued, and after the order of attachment had been issued, was doubtless attempting to perpetrate a fraud upon the appellee. The attachment created a lien upon the $270, and the bank had no right to pay it out thereafter, until the order of attachment should be discharged, or until an order of court was entered giving it directions as to whom it should pay the money, and it cannot now complain of its own negligence in allowing Fraley to get the money away from it, to the prejudice of the rights of the appellee. [3, 4]
While the appellant Holbrook claims in his testimony that he had a contract with the appellee, by which, if she would sign and acknowledge the deed to the farm, he would receive $600 of the purchase price of the farm, and in consideration of her signing the deed he would maintain her at his house as long as she lived, this statement is not very impressive in the light of the fact that the interest which the appellee was conveying away in the farm was her property, and her only means of support, in her helpless condition, and that, through the arrangements effected by the parties to the transaction at that time, the money was not paid to or received by the appellee, but went to Holbrook.
All of the facts and circumstances in the evidence conclusively show that an arrangement was made by the parties interested in the farm and its sale, and the members of the family, that this $600 was a fund set apart by all of them and put into the hands of Holbrook for the support and maintenance of appellee. It is very apparent that all of those engaged in the transaction recognized the hopeless mental imbecility of the appellee, or else she would have been intrusted with her own funds, instead of the funds being placed in the hands of Holbrook. It appears to have been an express parol trust, and that Holbrook was made the trustee to receive and hold the funds, and use them for the support and maintenance of appellee. Doubtless, to induce her to sign the deed, he held out to her the prospect of a home at his house for the remainder of her life. Holbrook's claim to having an interest in the land himself is perfectly idle. It is, also, futile to insist upon the enforcement of contracts alleged to have been entered into with one like the appellee, who was totally incapable, from the evidence, to have made a contract, and neither should be bound thereby.
Trust on personal property may be created by parol and proved by parol. Perry v. Riding, 9 Ky. Law Rep. 636; Berry v. Norris, 1 Duv. 303; Barkley v. Lane, 6 Bush, 588.
Under circumstances such as those related above, although appellant Holbrook and his family might have in good faith undertaken to treat the appellee well in their home, yet if he was unable to make her satisfied to remain there at his home, and could not procure her to do so on account of her vagaries arising from her unsoundness of mind, it would be inequitable to permit him to keep the $600, which arose from a sale of the appellee's potential right of dower in the farm on Blaine creek. To do so would deprive the appellee of her property, and all of the means which might be used in caring for and making her comfortable. If, on account of her imbecility or insanity, she is happy to live in the house of her daughter on Blaine creek, and is not satisfied to live with appellant Holbrook, or with Fraley, and to compel her to do so would destroy what little happiness there may be in store for her, although her conduct in refusing to live at these places should be irrational, the chancellor, seeking to do that which is best for her, would not compel her to reside at either the house of Holbrook or that of Fraley. It does not appear, neither does Holbrook contend, that he had any contract with any rational person of the family that, in consideration of the $600, he would only provide for her at his own house.
...
[7] It Is insisted for the appellant Fraley that he had no contract with the appellee, and did not receive anything from her, and for that reason she was not entitled to any Judgment against him, nor to recover the funds which he had on deposit with the Louisa National Bank, and the bank, by it's amended answer and petition, which it offered to file, makes the same insistence. The proof in the case, however, shows that Fraley was present at the conversation between Holbrook and Pleasant Skaggs and his wife, in which the fact that Holbrook had the $600 arising from the sale of the land to be expended for the benefit of appellee, and heard the offer which Holbrook made to Skaggs and wife to pay the $300 of the money to them to care for the appellee as long as she lived, and their refusal to do so, when Holbrook had received $600 for that purpose, but offered to do so if he would pay them the $600. Fraley then proposed to Holbrook to accept the proposition which Holbrook had made to Skaggs and wife. He then received the $300 with full knowledge of the fact that it was part of a fund held in trust by Holbrook for the benefit of the appellee.
One who receives title from a trustee with notice of the trust holds the title subject to the trust. Cox v. Osbourn, l A. K. Marsh. 311; Rogers v. Reid, 14 Ky. Law Rep. 811.
Fraley received this money impressed with the trust, and with knowledge that there was a trust upon it for the benefit of appellee, and the court did not err in requiring that portion of the fund to be paid by the bank to the receiver, because the proof shows that Fraley had done nothing by which he was entitled to any portion of it. No personal judgment was rendered against Fraley, but he should have been required to pay the $30, which he had expended of this fund, to the receiver ; but no cross-appeal has been taken by the appellee. Under the circumstances existing in the case at bar, the judgment of the court below seems to have done substantial justice between the parties, and it is therefore affirmed.
Hannah, J., not sitting
[The Southwestern Reporter, publ. by West Publishing Company, 1915, v. 175 c.3, pp. 977 - 980]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)