Rutherford v. Keith
Kentucky Court of Appeals
444 S.W.2d 546 (1969)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Fount Cox owned a 100-acre farm. Fount died in 1910 and left a will for the disposition of the farm. Fount’s will provided that his wife, Julia Cox, should have a life estate in the farm and provided for three possible contingent interests in the farm to follow Julia’s life estate. Under these provisions, Julia’s sister Medie Woosley would receive the farm if Medie was alive and unmarried at the time of Julia’s death; if Medie was married or dead at the time of Julia’s death, Fount’s brothers Sam Cox and J. M. Cox would jointly receive the farm; and if Medie was married or dead and one or both of Fount’s brothers were dead at the time of Julia’s death, the brothers’ children would receive the farm. Medie was married in 1916. Julia remarried in 1918. In that same year, Julia conveyed her interest in the farm to Sam, and Sam and J. M. then conveyed the interest they received from Julia along with their own contingent interests in the farm to Mrs. O. H. Fishback. Sam and J. M. both died in 1937. Julia died in 1954. Sam and J. M.’s children and grandchildren, including Rutherford (plaintiff), eventually brought an action to quiet title to the farm against Keith (defendant), who claimed to be the owner of the farm as a successor in title to Mrs. Fishback. The lower court found that Julia’s remarriage had terminated her life estate in the farm, that fee-simple title had therefore vested in Sam and J. M., and that it had been correctly conveyed to Mrs. Fishback. The court quieted title for Keith as Mrs. Fishback’s successor. Rutherford, along with Sam and J. M’s other descendants, appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hill, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.