Bourne v. Bourne
Supreme Court of Vermont
Bile in Chancery. Heard on the report of a master at the March Term, 1896, Rutland County. Taft, Chancellor, decreed that the defendants should convey the Engrem premises to the oratrix unless they should elect to pay her the amount withdrawn from the savings bank by Charles E. Bourne, and that in the event of such election the Engrem mortgage should be revived and foreclosed for the enforcement of such payment. The facts are recited in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Bile in Chancery. Heard on the report of a master at the March Term, 1896, Rutland County. Taft, Chancellor, decreed that the defendants should convey the Engrem premises to the oratrix unless they should elect to pay her the amount withdrawn from the savings bank by Charles E. Bourne, and that in the event of such election the Engrem mortgage should be revived and foreclosed for the enforcement of such payment. The facts are recited in the opinion. Under the master’s findings the deed and contemporaneous lease were testamentary papers only. Carleton v. Cameron, 54 Tex. 721: 38 Am. Rep. 620…
1Opinion of the CourtRowell, J.
Before and on June 26, 1879, Edmund Bourne, the oratrix’s husband, who died in July, 1879, owned a place in Danby, where they lived. On that day, by a warranty deed of that date in common form, they conveyed the same to the testator, Charles E. Bourne, their son, for the expressed consideration of a thousand dollars, and Charles gave them back alease thereof “for and during the term of their natural lives and the survivor of them.” It is found from oral testimony seasonably objected to by the defendant Ellen, who is the widow of Charles, that Charles paid nothing for said deed at the time,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rood v. WilleySupreme Court of Vermont · 1886
3Cited by3 opinions
- Royce v. CarpenterSupreme Court of Vermont · 1907
- Hooker, Corser & Mitchell Co. v. HookerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1915
- Harwood's Admx. v. Bennington & Rutland Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1895