Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

75 Neb. 397

McIntire v. McIntire

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided December 20, 1905

Nebraska Supreme Court · decided 1905-12-20

<p>Deeds: Cancelation. The plaintiff, a soldier’s widow 81 years of age, was the owner of a small cottage and two lots in the village of Louisville. She had no other property and no means of support except a widow’s pension. She conveyed the property to her son and daughter-in-law upon an express promise of support. Within a short time of the conveyance she was ejected from their home and compelled to seek support elsewhere. Held, that the decree of the district court canceling the conveyance should be affirmed.</p>

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 1947

3 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1905-12-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Jackson, C.

¶1The plaintiff instituted this action to set aside a conveyance of real estate. There was a decree in the trial court conforming to the prayer of the petition. The property consists of a small cottage and two lots in the village of Louisville, Cass county, said to be of the value of $200. The plaintiff is a soldier’s widow, 81 years of age at the *398time of the trial, and has no property other than that in controversy, and no means of support except a widow’s pension. The defendants are her son and daughter-in-law. ■

¶2The plaintiff claims to have conveyed the premises to the defendants in consideration of an express promise on their part to take care of her and provide her a good home, and that within two months from the delivery of the deed she was turned out of doors and compelled to seek refuge elsewhere. The defendants contend that the property was a gift. The evidence- is conflicting and it would serve no useful purpose to set it out at length. We find, however, ample support for the decree, and conclude that the court would have been remiss, had it failed to restore the widow’s mite.

¶3It is recommended that the decree of the district court be affirmed.

Duffie and Albert, CO., concur.

¶4By the Court:'For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the decree of the district court is

¶5Affirmed.

/75/neb/397 · .json · Public domain