Boone v. Tipton
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Pekkins, J.
Suit by Tipton against Boone to recover a tract of land. Becovery below. The land, forty acres, worth about $250, was owned by one Piohens. He devised it to one Wonsetter on the condition subsequent, that Wonsetter should support Hannah Brown during her life.
Wonsetter commenced furnishing Hannah her support. While being so supported, Hannah married one Mann, left Wonsetter, “and refused to receive his aid.” There is no evidence that Wonsetter ever refused to provide for Hannah. Hannah, claiming ■ to be the heir of Piohens, and further, that the condition lor her support was broken, sold and conveyed the land to Tipton. Wonsetter had before conveyed to Boone. . • - A. J. Boone, for appellant. J. E. McDonald and A. L. Boache, for appellee.
Supposing Hannah to be the heir of Pickens, still it would seem that she could not convey, in this case, till after entry upon the land for condition broken. 'See the cases cited in Leach v. Leach, 10 Ind. 271 , and in Strong v. Clem, 12 id. 37. But passing by this point, it is clear that the evidence makes no case for Tipton. Hannah waived performance of the condition. This branch of the case is covered Petro v. Cassiday, 13 Ind. 289 .
Per Curiam.
The judgment is reversed, with costs. Cause remanded for further proceedings.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.