Ireland v. Ireland
Decision Date | 07 February 1888 |
Citation | 12 A. 184,43 N.J.E. 311 |
Parties | IRELAND v. IRELAND et al. |
Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Bill by Hannah Ireland against Samuel Ireland and Amanda Steelman to procure a discovery of the lands of which Joseph Ireland died seized, and of the profits that the defendants, his devisees, have had therefrom since his death, in 1884, and also payment to the complainant, who is his widow, of her proper share of those profits, and the assignment to her of her dower in said lands. To the suit the defendant interposes a plea which, excepting some formal parts, is as follows: "That the said Joseph Ireland and Hannah, his wife, the complainants, were unable to live happily together, in consequence of which they made and executed an agreement of separation in form and terms as follows:
John F. Harned, for complainant. David J. Pancoast, for defendants.
MCGILL, Ch., (after stating the facts as above.) The plea, it will be noticed, presents the following facts: Joseph Ireland and his wife, the complainant, were unable to live happily together, and consequently agreed to live apart, and upon arriving at such agreement, they entered into a written contract with each other, without the intervention of trustees, in which Ireland undertook that he would permit the complainant, during her life, to live separate from him, reside where she pleased, and follow any trade or business as a feme sole, and that he would not molest her or any other person because of her; and both parties agreed that each should have to his or her and his or her heirs or assigns, all their respective properties, real and personal, then acquired or thereafter to be acquired; and Ireland further agreed to pay the complainant, upon the execution of the agreement, $1,500, which she was to accept in full...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bendler v. Bendler
...equitable rights and duties which arise out of the transaction constitute the subject of equitable cognizance. Ireland v. Ireland, 43 N.J.Eq. 311, 12 A. 184 (Ch. 1888); Garwood v. Garwood, 56 N.J.Eq. 265, 38 A. 954 (Ch. 1897); Adoue v. Spencer, 62 N.J.Eq. 782, 49 A. 10, 56 L.R.A. 817, 90 Am......
-
In re Estate of Wood
...399; Eggers v. Eggers, 225 Mo. 116; McBreen v. McBreen, 154 Mo. 323; King v. King, 184 Mo. 99; Johnson v. Johnson, 23 Mo. 561; Ireland v. Ireland, 43 N.J.Eq. 311. (3) burden is upon appellants, who rely upon the separation agreement, to show that the agreement is fair, reasonable and just a......
-
Harrington v. Harrington.
...inequitable or unfairly obtained. The burden of showing unfairness is always on the husband. Dennison v. Dennison, supra; Ireland v. Ireland, 43 N.J.Eq. 311, 12 A. 184. And ‘the equities to be considered in determining the fairness or unfairness of such a contract are the equities as applie......
-
Daniels v. Benedict
...in the case at bar,-- upon the presumption that the wife was under the control of the husband when the contract was made. Thus, in Ireland v. Ireland the court 'The wife is presumed to be sub potestate viri, and the affirmative is with the husband to show that the contract was fair, open, r......