Court Opinion

ID: 9631371
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:35:45.019817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:03.694784
License: Public Domain

Henderson, J.,
delivered the following dissenting opinion.
I find no room in the testimony for “interpretation”, whereby a condition subsequent can be attached to the *339agreement, making it contingent upon the son’s survival. There is not a word of testimony to support such a finding. The effect to do equity by an unusual and complicated computation, in order to restore the consideration paid in the shape of a complete restoration of the premises, is a poor substitute for the appellees’ loss of their home. Nor does it seem equitable that the appellant should now realize upon the appreciated value of the investment of her husband and herself, when both had repeatedly promised to defer such realization until the death of the improvers. I think the decree of the chancellor should be affirmed.