Case ID: ky-op_2/html/0214-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Judge Peters:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hattie W. Jones et al v. Susan Jones.
    Pleading — Notice to Surrender Possession in Ejectment — Life Tenancy by Parol Agreement.
    Appellee, mother of John S. Jones, deceased entered upon and took possession of a house and lot belonging to the estate under a parol agreement with the intestate before he died, that she was to have same as a home during her lifetime, in consideration of services rendered the intestate during his life: Held, that before appellee could be ejected she would be entitled to notice to surrender possession of the premises to the heirs of the intestate.
    September 22, 1868.
    APPEAL EROM JEEEEBSON CIRCUIT COURT.
    This is an action iu ejectment by Hattie Jones and others to dispossess their grandmother and mother-in-law, respectively, of a house and lot in Louisville.
    John S. Jones, died intestate, possessed of a house and lot in the city of Louisville and leaving a widow and two children (appellant in the case) his lawful heirs.
    
      Farris & Bechley, for appellant.
    
    
      Barrett & Roberts, for appellee.
    
    John S. Jones before death placed appellee in possession of the property in compliance with a parol agreement between the déceased and appellee in consideration of service rendered by the appellee during John S. Jones’ life time with the understanding that she was to have this place as a home during her life time.
    Issue having been joined, a jury was sworn to try and returned a verdict for defendant.
   Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Peters:

There is no bill of exceptions presented with this record showing the evidence adduced on the trial, and if appellee entered by the direction, and with the assent of intestate, her son, before she • can be ejected she is entitled to notice to surrender possession of the premises, and as it does not appear such notice was given her and the court below refused a new trial, we cannot say that the judgment is erroneous.

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.