
    Augustus P. Tucker v. Hiram A. Tucker and Another.
    
      Rond: Agreement to furnish horse and "buggy: Compensation: Use and occupation of house: Repairs. In a suit to foreclose a mortgage given to secure performance of a bond made by a son to his father in consideration of his father deeding to him his farm, an undertaking in such bond, to furnish the father a horse and buggy whenever required for his own use, is held not to warrant the latter in arbitrarily demanding that a horse and buggy should be furnished him regularly upon certain days for an indefinite period, without any reference to the necessities likely to exist at such times requiring him to use the same, or in demanding compensation on that basis; and the undertalcing in such bond that the father should have the possession and use of a certain house, and that in case it should be destroyed another suitable house should be provided, will not support a claim for compensation for repairs required to be made to the house.
    
    
      Heard January 4.
    
    
      Decided January 9.
    
    Appeal in Chancery from Branch Circuit.
    
      This appeal is from a decree fixing the amount to be paid as compensation for certain alleged breaches of the following bond:
    “Know all men by these presents, that I, Hiram A. Tucker, of Coldwater, of Branch county, Michigan, am held and firmly bound unto Augustus P. Tucker and Seraphina A, Tucker of the same place, in the sum of five thousand dollars, to be paid to the said Augustus P. Tucker and Seraphina A. Tucker, their executors, administrators or assigns, to the payment whereof I bind myself, my heirs, executors and administrator’s, firmly by these presents. Sealed with my seal and dated the twenty-first day of October, 1862. *“The condition of this obligation is such that if the said Hiram A. Tucker, his executors or administrators, does allow, permit and protect' the said Augustus P. Tucker and Seraphina A. Tucker in the free, exclusive, undisturbed, quiet and peaceable possession of the house on the premises this day sold and deeded to said Hiram A. Tucker, in the township of Coldwater, and now occupied by said Augustus P. Tucker and Seraphina A. Tucker, for and during their and each of their natural lives; and if the said Hiram A. Tucker, his executors and administrators, shall, at all times during the natural lives of the said Augustus P. Tucker and Seraphina A. Tucker, suitably support and maintain the said Augustus P. Tucker and Seraphina A. Tucker and provide them with suitable food, drink, clothes, nursing, medicine, firewood and all other things suitable and necessary for their maintenance and support in the house above designated, and in ease said house should be destroyed then in some other suitable house to be provided by said Hiram A. Tucker, his executors and administrators, and in case the said Augustus P. Tucker and Seraphina A. Tucker, or either of them, become dissatisfied with the manner or way in which the said Hiram A. Tucker supports and provides for them, or if they shall so desire, and it shall be optional with them, to receive, in lieu and instead of the food, drink, clothes, nursing, medicines, firewood and other things as above mentioned, the sum of five hundred dollars a year during the time above specified (viz: their natural lives), to be paid in quarter-yearly installments- at the end of each quarter of a year. The said Hiram A. Tucker is to furnish and provide the said A. P. and S. A. Tucker with a horse and buggy whenever they or either of them shall desire and call upon the said Hiram A. Tucker for one for their own use; and if the said Hiram A. Tucker, his executors and administrators, shall also pay or cause to be paid to one Curtis M. Tucker, the son of said A. P. and S. A. Tucker, the sum of fifteen hundred dollars in three equal yearly installments, after the death of both' of the said Augustus P. *T acker and Seraphina A. Tucker, then this obligation to be void.”
    This bond was secured by mortgage on the premises deeded to the son.
    The broaches alleged were the failure to furnish complainant, Augustus P. Tucker, with a horse and buggy when demanded, and failure to keep the house mentioned in the bond in a suitable condition and repair for his occupancy and residence. The decree appealed from was granted upon a petition by said Augustus P. Tucker for a second decree for further breaches of said bond. The decree in question awarded the sum of two hundred and forty-seven dollars and fifty cents as compensation for failure to furnish the horse and buggy, and declared that complainant was not entitled to decree for repairs on the house, and then, reciting that it appeared defendants had tendered complainant two hundred and forty-seven dollars and fifty cents before the filing of Ms petition, ordered that complainant pay defendants their costs of suit to be taxed, and that the same be set off against the amount decreed to be paid by defendants to complainant, and in default of payment by defendants of the sum found due, a sale was ordered. From this decree complainant appealed.
    
      J. JET. Mo Gowan, for complainant.
    
      M G. Muller, for defendants.
    
      
       Construction of contract between parent and child as to place of support held, that in view of circumstances it was intended that the parent should be supported at son’s houses Pratt ». Pratt, 42 Mich., 174. In an action on a bond for support of parents, the full penalty of the bond cannot be recovered, where the conditions have been faithfully carried out for some years, and no actual injury from breach being sliowh: Wright v. Wrightt 49 Mich., 624.
    
   Marston, J.:

A fair construction of the bond in this case would not warrant complainant in arbitrarily demanding that a horse and buggy should be furnished him regularly upon certain days for an indefinite period, without any reference to the necessities likely to exist at such times requiring him to use the same. In construing this same bond when this case was here before, it was well said that “ increasing age might require such accommodation more frequently, and it might *render the parties incapable of using it.” This could only be properly ascertainable as the necessity to use a horse and buggy would arise. We find nothing in the decree upon this branch of the case of which complainant has any cause to complain. As to the repairs to the house, there is nothing in the bond requiring defendants to keep this house in repair. The parties have in their agreement specifically provided what shall be done, and we have no right to add any thing thereto. In case this house should he destroyed defendants did not agree to rebuild it, or if injured that they would repair it, but that.if destroyed, then that some other snitable house should he provided. This contingency has not happened. Whenever it does, then if some other suitable bouse is not provided, complainant may have j ust cause of complaint.

The decree must be affirmed, with costs.

The other justices concurred.  