The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-09-13
WOman's Experience Who
Gave All to Children.
SUPREME COURT DE ClsION
der Property Not to Be Retired to Her,
but She Is Entitled 70 Support
(. According to Her Deed
Of CIT.
X 1he state Supreme Court at Staunton
rendered q number Of Interesting dools-

IONS last week. a5i2} 4 ss AsS7
In tho case Of Kelster and others VS..
Cublne, from the Circuit Court OF Bland
county tho opinion Of the court Is writ
ten by Judge Harrison, md reversed
The decree Of the Circuit Court and re-
lnands the cAuGe for further proceedings
to be had therein not in conflict with
Z this opinion.
This is an interesting cage involving
the not unusual experience OF q person
who deviees property to g relative with
the condition that the grantor shall have
q com Portable homo with the grantee. In
this case Melvina Cubine conveyed to nor
daughter, Rhoda Cubine, two lots and q
house, in Bland county, In consideration
Of love and affection, and with the pro-
viso that the grantor shall have q proper
and comfortable home with the grantee
Tor the remainder OF her (the grantorsl
life. The daughter afterwards married
Keister, the appellant in the case, and
together they took possession OF tha
premises the Krantor remaining and aold-
ting with them.
Contrary to the fairy story denoument,i
\ they did not live together happily
ever afterwards, but for n term OF seven
years when Rhoda Cubine Keister, the
4 Grantee, died leaving two in FAINT children,
q who with the husband are the appellants
here. {. rs R 545fs x
z RI WOULDN'T SUPPORT HER.
:
Keister refused longer to furnish Mel
vina Cubine. tho grantor. home and
support, became abusive and compelled
her TO abandon tho home and seek shell
ter elsewhere. Melylna Cublne. the ap-
pelee In the case, then filed bill alleg-
ing that the consider noitaortfeh iridium
ing that the consideration for the CON
veyance had failed and praying that the
deed be annulled and set aside, and that
she be restored to her original rights In
tho property or II not entitled to this
relief that the property be sold and pro-
ceeds applied to her support and main
tenance. The Circuit Court on this hear
Il ing rescinded and annulled the deed, re-
u stored the Krantor to her rights and
{ awarded a writ to place her In immediate
and full possession. From this decree
z the infant children OF grantee appca led.
The appellate court does not adhere to tho
< rule that In every case OF conveynnca
in $consid eration OF maintenance and sup
port where the considerable falls re-
scIssion follows. The appellate court
4 takes the ground that relief is afforded In
court Of equity, according to the merits
4 OF the case The power OLA court Of
equity TO rescind tho contract includes tho
power to afford less drastic relief. II tho
latter course be more consistent with
Justice
}: NEITHERtI IN DEFAULT. Il
In this case neither the grantor nor
those claiming under her are in de-
U FAULT. The grantee died after faithfully
performing her part OF the contract dur
4 Ing life. Her title devolved upon her
infant children. who are not ca pable OF
performing the contract during their
Erandmother's lifetime. The fault is that
II OF the father, who Is not a party to the
deed and assumed no obligations under
It, His default should not be allowed to
prejudice the infant children III their
rights. rhe deed makes no provision for
the event Of the grantees death before
complete performance OF contract. All
that remains to the grantor. Melyna Gus
d hine. 3 is the material support provided for
by the deed. The grantor3 comes into q
court OF equity for relief. She is entitled
n TO the support provided for by the deed,
K but not to rescission OF the contract
and entire restoration OF the property TO
.1 Il or use. The right OF the grantor Is above
all@other claims and when the yalue Of
that support has been ascertained a sale
OF the property will be necessary and a
CONSUMPTION OF the corpus required to
ntIsry the demand. On the other hand
something may be left for the infant
children OF the grantee, which the court
must ureserve and protect for their
benefit. The larger part Of the Improve
ments placed on the property by Keister
were placed after the institution Of this
suit and could not have been made under
tho belief that the appellants had a good
title, but with full knowledge that the
title was in actual dispute and litigation.
For those reasons the decree appealed
Il from isS reversed and the cause remanded
for further proceedings,
Robinet VS.. Mitchell
In the case OF James Robinetts admins
trtor va T. =. Mitchell and wife ct ais.
tho opinion OF the court Is written by
Judge white and nffirms the DEGREES Of
the Circuit Court Of Bland county. The
appeal In the case is from two decisions
81 the Circuit Court of the county afore-
said. one at the May term, 1902, estnb-
fishing certain demands on behalf OF an
pellees against the estate OF James
Robinett, deceased and the second Mt
the November term of that year, dismiss
Ing petition of appellant for rehear-
ing OF the former decree, These claims
I are evidenced by a personal decree which
Il was rendered December Is, 1856, in favor
OF appelees against James Roblnett and
Harvey r. Mustard joint executors Of