Barker v. Hundley
Barker v. Hundley
Opinion of the Court
Opinion op the Court by
Under tbe will of Catharine Barker appellant took an estate for life in tbe bouse and premises constituting tbe residence of testatrix at tbe publication of ber will, determinable at tbe pleasure of appellant, and while she provided that ber brother J. Naylor, bis two daughters, and Hundley, were to have homes with tbe devisee of tbe estate for life as long as she retained' possession of tbe premises, if they desired it, there is nothing in tbe language of tbe will indicating an intention on tbe part
If these beneficiaries had desired a residence with appellant and had notified her of that desire, and she had refused to permit them a co-habitance there, they would have had a good cause of action against her for such refusal; hut before an action could have been maintained against her, a demand to enter, and a refusal on her part, must have been alleged.
Furthermore, as to Hundley the evidence shows that he was instrumental in procuring- the property to be rented and acted as agent for appellant in making the lease to Stepp; he is by his own acts therefore equitably estopped from asserting any claim to a forfeiture of the estate.
Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded, with directions to dismiss the petition so far as it seeks a forfeiture of the estate of appellant in the house and grounds attached, and for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Affirmed on cross appeal.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.