Barnes v. Starr

• Decision Date: 08 March 1894
• Citation: 28 A. 980,64 Conn. 136
• Parties: BARNES v. STARR et al.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

28 A. 980

64 Conn. 136

BARNES

v. STARR et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 8, 1894.

Appeal from superior court, Fairfield county.

Action by Lizzie T. Barnes against William H. Starr and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed.

Samuel Tweedy, Lyman D. Brewster, and J. Belden Hurlbut, for appellants.

Goodwin Stoddard and Samuel Fessenden, for appellee.

ANDREWS, C. J. The plaintiff is the widow of Samuel H. Barnes, who died at Wilton on the 23d day of April, 1891. He left a paper, which was duly executed as his last will. The defendants are the executors and legatees named therein, and all the persons who would be distributees of his estate in case of intestacy. The plaintiff was married to the said Samuel H. Barnes on the 4th day of August, 1886. On the 19th day of July, prior to their marriage, they mutually executed a marriage contract in these words.

"This agreement and written contract, made this 19th day of July, A. D. 1886, by and between Lizzie T. Cartwright, of the town of Norwalk, in Fairfield Co., and state of Connecticut, party of the first part, and Samuel H. Barnes, of the town of Wilton, in said county, party of the second part, witnesseth that whereas, a marriage is intended to be had between the parties to this agreement, and each has property of his or her own, and in the event of such marriage the survivor of them would be entitled to a statutory share of the property owned by the other at the time of his or her death, as appears by the statutes of this state; and whereas, both parties desire that by this written contract said Lizzie T. Cartwright shall receive from the said Samuel H. Barnes his promise to pay her the sum of five thousand dollars, in the event of such marriage, out of his estate, in case she outlives him, to be hers and her representatives' forever, which sum is intended as a provision in lieu of such statutory share: Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises, and of the sum of one dollar, received from the said Samuel H. Barnes by the said Lizzie T. Cartwright, she hereby agrees to receive, and doth receive, the same from him as a provision in lieu of such statutory share of his property in case she outlives him, and she doth relinquish and release his estate from any and all further claims and demands by her and her representatives thereupon whatever. And the said Samuel H. Barnes, in consideration of the premises, and of the sum of one dollar received to his full satisfaction from Lizzie T. Cartwright, doth hereby promise and agree to relinquish any claim upon her estate in case he outlives her, and, in case she outlives him, doth promise to pay, or that she shall be paid by his representatives, out of his estate, to her or her representatives, the sum of five thousand dollars, as a provision for her in lieu of her statutory share of his estate, to be hers and her representatives' and heirs' forever. In witness whereof said parties have severally set their hand and seals the day and year above first written, and to the faithful performance of which they mutually bind and engage themselves, each to the other, his executor and administrator and her executrix and administratrix. Lizzie T. Cartwright. [L. S.] Samuel H, Barnes. [L. S.]

"Signed, sealed, and delivered in presence of Curtis Thompson, Howard N. Wakeman."

"County of Fairfield, Town of Bridgeport— ss.: July 19th, 1886. Personally appeared Lizzie T. Cartwright and Samuel H. Barnes, signers and sealers of the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the same to be their free act and deed, before me, Curtis Thompson, Notary Public."

The complaint in this action, after setting out the fact of the marriage of this plaintiff to the said Samuel H. Barnes, and that prior to their marriage they executed the said marriage contract, alleges that: "(3) The said Samuel H. Barnes, in order to induce the plaintiff to execute the said instrument, represented that he had received a letter from some anonymous writer, declaring that the plaintiff's sole object in the proposed marriage with him, the said Barnes, was to obtain his, the said Barnes', money; that he believed it was inspired by relatives of his, and persons connected with him by marriage, and who were desirous of becoming the objects of his bounty; that he desired to convince them that there was no foundation for their anxiety or fear in this respect; that he did not believe that such was the object of the plaintiff, or that she had any such purpose in view, and that he had given them to understand that he so believed, but that be desired her to execute the said instrument, that he might show it to those who were taking so much interest in his affairs, in order to relieve himself from annoyance and vexatious interference by them; and that as soon as she had executed it, and he had shown it to these parties, and thereby accomplished the purpose which he had in view, he would destroy it; and that the plaintiff's rights should not be in any manner injuriously affected by the execution of said instrument of agreement. ** * (5) Subsequently, and before the execution thereof, the said Barnes renewed his request that the plaintiff should join with him in the execution of said instrument, and, as a further inducement to cause the plaintiff to acquiesce and to execute the same, represented to her that it would make but little difference to her any way, as he was worth only fifteen thousand dollars; and he again stated to the plaintiff the reason why he desired her to execute the instrument, and again declared that he would destroy it as soon as he had shown it to the parties to whom he referred. (6) Relying upon these statement.3 and the promise of the said Barnes, the plaintiff was induced to execute the said instrument, and did execute the same on the 19th day of July, A. D. 1886. * * * (10) The said representations made by the said Barnes to the plaintiff to induce her to execute said instrument, and relying upon which she did execute the same, were false, and were made with the fraudulent intent to defraud the plaintiff, and to induce her to execute said agreement, and without any intention to use it for any such purpose with the parties referred to by said Barnes, or to destroy it after he had show it to them; and at the time when the said representations were made the said Barnes was worth seventy-five thousand dollars. (11) Said representations were made, and said instrument was procured to be executed in the manner in which it was, fraudulently, and with intent to defraud and to deprive the plaintiff of her statutory rights in the estate of said Barnes." The complaint ended with a prayer that the said marriage contract be declared to be void, and to be delivered up to be canceled. The superior court passed a decree granting the prayer of the complaint. The defendants have appealed to this court.

There are in the complaint, as claimed by the plaintiff, three specifications of fraud by her late husband, relying upon which she says she signed the said marriage contract, and on account of which she asks that it should be set aside: (a) That he had received an anonymous letter, the authorship of which he attributed to his relatives, and persons connected with him by marriage, warning him not to marry the plaintiff; and he wanted the contract to relieve him from their interference, etc.; (b) that he promised to destroy the contract as soon as he had secured that purpose; and (c) that he represented to her that he was not worth more than $15,000. The finding, so far as it bears upon these claims of the plaintiff, is as follows: The plaintiff, whose maiden name was Lizzie T. Cartwright, first became acquainted with Mr. Barnes about the 1st of January, 1885. He was then a widower,— his wife having died in the month of September, 1884. He was then 75 years of age. It was about the middle of July that he first proposed marriage to her. She was then 45 years old, and had never been married. She did not accept the proposal at that time, hesitating on account of the disparity of their ages and for other reasons. At that time, and for about 10 years prior thereto, she had been living with her sister, Mrs. George T. Hunter, where she was treated as one of the family. She had upwards of $1,000 deposited in savings banks to her credit. Mr. Barnes was a well-preserved man for his years, and apparently vigorous. He had always been a farmer. The plain tiff knew in a general way that he had considerable property. She knew that he owned his farm, which was a nice farm, well stocked, and that he owned the Van Zant place in Norwalk, which was worth $5,500, and believed that he had sufficient income or property from which an income was derived by him to enable him to give up farming, rent or sell his farm, and live upon the Van Zant place in moderate and comfortable manner, and support her and himself upon the income of his said property, without the necessity of his performing any labor himself. But she did not know, nor did she inquire, the amount of his property, nor in what it was invested. They became engaged to be married about the last of August or the first of September of that year. At an interview which took place between them about a month after their engagement, Mr. Barnes showed the plaintiff an anonymous letter, which he said he had recently received, which read: "Norwalk, July 9, 1885. Mr. Barnes—Dear Sir: I write this to warn you against taking a step you will always regret. Miss Cartwright is not the woman you should select for a wife. She is too hateful and quarrelsome. She is the most disagreeable person to be found. She wants to rule and ride over everybody. Now, I will tell you of something I overheard her say. She said, when asked if she loved you, 'No; how could I love that old thing? But I could love his money, and when I get him, I will have things all my own way, and I will make him stand around.' Yes, and so s...