Court Opinion

ID: 9834617
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 01:19:40.412083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:35.924405
License: Public Domain

Upon petition for rehearing:
It is urged that the allegations of the bill are not broad enough to warrant cancellation of the deed and bill of sale on the ground that there was no meeting of the minds of the parties as to the place where maintenance was to be furnished by the defendants to the plaintiff.
True, it is not specifically alleged in the bill that there was no meeting of the minds on this point. But there is an allegation that the defendants agreed with the plaintiff to support him at his old home. The defendants deny this in their answer and say that such support was to be furnished at their home. Thus, there is clearly presented by the pleadings an issue as to whether the parties agreed as to the place where maintenance was to be furnished. We think the evidence demonstrates that this was not agreed. We have ^considered this as the decisive point.