Beckett v. Heston

• Decision Date: 28 March 1892
• Citation: 23 A. 1014,49 N.J.E. 610
• Parties: BECKETT v. HESTON.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

23 A. 1014

49 N.J.E. 610

BECKETT

v. HESTON.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

March 28, 1892.

Bill by Anna P. Beckett against Isaiah M. Heston to cancel a deed. Decree granted.

A. B. Endicott, for complainant.

John W. Wartman, for defendant.

GREEN, V. C. The complainantisa widow lady, between 65 and 70 years of age. She was the owner of a house and lot in the city of Philadelphia, and a house and lot in Palmyra, in this state. These two properties constituted her entire estate, and the income from them was her sole means of maintenance and support. She valued the Philadelphia property at $5,000. It was subject to a mortgage of $3, 000. The Palmyra property she valued at $3,000, and it was subject to a mortgage of $1,000. She hud had three sons, Alfred. Isaiah, the defendant, and another, who is dead. The deceased son had left two children surviving him as his heirs at law. The complainant says she had, either by advancement, or by becoming security for her son, now deceased, paid on his account what she considered more than the equivalent of his just share in her estate; that, having this in view, and being desirous of avoiding trouble, she determined to convey the Philadelphia property to Alfred, and the Palmyra property to Isaiah, the equity of redemption of each being equal, and to take from them some assurance that she would have the control of the properties during her life; that she thought this would have the same effect as making a will, and that it would be a disposition of her property which would distribute it fairly among her children. She executed a deed of the Philadelphia property to her son Alfred, dated April 16, 1891, and Alfred gave her a declaration of trust drawn by Mr. Allen B. Endicott of Atlantic City, dated April, 1891, and acknowledged April 25, 1891, by which he declares that the property was conveyed to him by his mother to hold the undivided one-half interest or part thereof for himself, his heirs, and assigns forever, and the remaining one-half interest or part for his brother Isaiah, but upon the following express condition, viz., that the said Anna P. Beckett, during her life-time, shall receive all the rents, profits, and benefits of said premises. The deed was delivered by complainant to her son Alfred, and the declaration of trust by Alfred to his mother. Alfred prepared a deed of the Palmyra property from the complainant to defendant, and sent it to her. She took it to the office of Mr. Howard Parry, a conveyancer and commissioner of deeds in Burlington county, May 13, 1891, and under that date executed and acknowledged the same. She paid all the expenses of execution and record, and left the deed with Mr. Parry to have it recorded. He sent it to the clerk's office of Burlington county, May 14, 1891, and it was recorded in Book 290 of Deeds for that county, (folio 589.) Mr. Parry obtained it from the clerk's office, and sent it by mail, addressed to the complainant at Palmyra. A letter containing the deed was taken from the post-office at Palmyra by defendant, who handed the envelope containing the deed, unopened, to his mother. She says that, prior to the execution of the deed, she had explained to her son, the defendant, that she had conveyed to his brother Alfred the Philadelphia property, and taken from him a declaration of trust, and that she was going to convey the Palmyra property to him, taking from him a similar declaration of trust with reference to that property, and that the matter was fully explained. On receiving the letter she opened the envelope, and said to the defendant, "This is the deed I have had prepared, conveying this property;" but she did not give it to him, nor did she part with its possession and control at any time. She says the defendant never had it In his hand, except when carrying it inclosed in the envelope from the post-office, and, in fact, never saw it; and in this statement she is sustained by the testimony of the defendant. Defendant denies having had any such prior conversation with his mother. A declaration of trust with reference to the Palmyra property was afterwards prepared by Alfred, he copying the one which had been prepared by Mr. Endicott with reference to the Philadelphia property. This was presented by complainant to the defendant, and he was asked by her to execute it. His wife objected to his signing the paper, and he then refused, and continued afterwards to refuse, to sign any declaration of trust, or to reconvey the property to his mother. There is no pretense that he ever parted with any consideration whatever, except that he made one or two payments, of three dollars each, under an agreement which was in the nature of rent for the property, part of which he and his wife occupied in common with his mother. On his continued refusal the complainant brings this suit, and asks, as relief, that she may be decreed to be the owner of the said house and lot, and that the said conveyance may be decreed null and void, and that the said Isaiah M. Heston and Lizzie Heston, his wife, may be required, by the decree of this court, to convey to her the house and lot, and that the said Isaiah may be restrained and enjoined from conveying, mortgaging, or in any wise disposing of the house and lot, and for other and further relief. The answer of the defendants denies that they, or either of them, ever knew when the conveyance was made to Isaiah. They deny that they were ever spoken to or consulted concerning the conveyance, and severally aver that the conveyance to Isaiah was made without their knowledge, and without any inducement, express or...