The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-07-21

property was a quarter interest; that
would more than support him during his
life." To which Mr.. Smith said, "Mr.
Fellows, II you will not adopt either CT
my suggestions. as l will not turn yoi
OUT you leave me no choice but to con-
tinue to keep you as ! have been doing
under our agreement" He replied, that
is what / want you to do; II you recover
the property, you will be well paid. III
you do not, you will have done great
charity" This, nearly in words, and
strictly In substance, is all that was ever
said about either our agreements or the
deed of conveyance. Mr.. Smith continued
and kept the plaintiff as he had previous
ly been keeping him, until he sold out his
interest in the property, and left Mr.
Smith about April /, 1897.
OTHER ALLEGATIONS.
H. The seventh paragraph is not true
as therein alleged.
r. The eighth paragraph Is not true.
Cornelius Smith took no undue, unfair
or unlawful advantage of his relations
with the plaintiff, or of his condition and
situation In accepting from him the said
conveyance, and did not act In bad faith
in recording the conveyance aforesaid,
or In not destroying it, and the plaintiff
is not justly or equitabiy entitled to have
the same cancelled, and to have recon-
veyance of the said premises from the de-
PENDANTS.
49, And defendants aver that in May,
1892 after the plaintiff returned from his
son in the west they were ready and WILL
ing, and SO informed the plaintiff to con-
Vey to him the property in question, on
condition that he would support himself
until the termination of his action of
etectment That the plaintiff then and
there refused this offer, and elected to
confirm the said deed of conveyance,
n n a han nd r
ter such confirmation, and after receiv-
ing the consideration for said conveyance,
he is estopped from the recovery of the
property.
A. The defendants further aver that be-
sides the cost of keeping the said plain
tiff, the plaintiff during the time of his
keeping, was in habit of getting intoxi-
Gated about three times a year, and each
of these intoxialtions would continue
from two to six weeks; that during each
of such intoxications the plaintiff would
lexpend money belonging tH Cornelius
Smith, in the purchase of whisky, in the
sum of from twenty to forty dollars. In
this manner he expended money belong
ing to said Smith, to the amount of about
eight hundred dollars. And further his
intoXications as aforesaid, in and around
the office of said Smith, for the time
aforesaid injured and damaged the said
Smiths professio nal business to the eX-
tent of five thousand dollars, and while
the plaintiffs habits as aforesaid were
both disagreeable and expensive, yet the
said Smith was forced to either put up
with it, or turn the plaintiff into the
street.
Is. That the plaintiff does not allcge in
his bill that he has any title or interest
in the property in question. And in truth
at and before the fling of said bill, the
plaintiff had no title or interest in said
property, he having about the 18th day of
March, 1897, by deed duly executed and re-
corded in deed book AS, page 165, etc,
conveyed his entire title and interest in
the said property to Horatio n. Patrick,
reference being thereto had, will more
fully and at large appear and therefore
the Plaintiff having not title or interest
in the property in question, is not entitled
to any relief whatever.
That the defendants are informed and
believe that plaintiff has full, adequate
and complete remedy at law, and his bill
is an ejectment bill, and as such it ought
to be dismissed.