Belisle v. Belisle

• Decision Date: 06 April 1937
• Citation: Belisle v. Belisle, 88 N.H. 459, 191 A. 273 (N.H. 1937)
• Parties: BELISLE et al. v. BELISLE et al.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

191 A. 273

BELISLE et al.

v. BELISLE et al.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Bolknap.

April 6, 1937.

Transferred from Superior Court, Belknap County; Young, Judge.

Bill in equity by Joseph E. Belisle and others against Horace E. Belisle and others.Case transferred on demurrer of defendantHorace E. Belisle.

Demurrer sustained.

Bill in equity, to set aside a conveyance of real property and for an accounting.The defendantHorace E. Belisle demurred and answered over; the answers, if any, of the other defendants have not been transferred.

The plaintiffs are three of the five heirs at law of one Zanase, alias Athenase, Belisle, who died intestate on August 24, 1932.The defendant Horace is another heir; the fifth does not appear as a party.The other defendants are the administrator of the estate of Zanase and a mortgagee of the property who claims under a mortgage executed by the defendant Horace.

The bill alleges that on January 29, 1927, Zanase Belisle became seized of the property, title to which is here in dispute, by virtue of a good and sufficient warranty deed, and that on January 27, 1930, a quitclaim deed was, executed, and subsequently recorded, which purported to convey the property to the defendant Horace, but "that said deed was not executed by said Zanase alias Athenase Belisle of Laconia, the true owner, said deed being made for the purpose of deceiving and defrauding creditors of the said Zanase alias Athenase Belisle, and being executed by one Cyrille A. Belisle of Providence, Rhode Island, who had no title to the said property whatsoever."

It was agreed by counsel at the oral argument that the name which Cyrille A. Belisle signed to the deed was that of the owner of record of the premises.

The questions of law raised by the defendant's demurrer were transferred without ruling and in advance of trial by Young, J.

Jewett & Jewett, Tilton & Tilton, and Robert V. Johnson, all of Laconia, for plaintiffs.Normandin & Normandin, of Laconia, and Murchie, Murchie & Blandin and Donald Knowlton, all of Concord (Fortunat A. Normandin, of Laconia, orally), for defendantHorace E. Belisle.

WOODBURY, Justice.

Due to the fact that the answers of the defendant administrator and of the defendant mortgagee have not been transferred, the transactions in which they are alleged to have been involved are not before us for consideration.It follows that our consideration is limited to the deed dated January 27, 1930, purporting to be from Zanase, alias Athenase, Belisle to the defendantHorace E. Belisle.

With respect to this deed the plaintiffs make two separate allegations.In the first place, they contend that it cannot operate as a conveyance of the property at all because it was executed by a complete stranger to the title, and, in the second place, they contend that, if it was a conveyance of the property, then they are entitled to have it set aside because it was executed for the purpose of deceiving and defrauding the grantor's creditors.

The demurrer of the defendant"is regarded as an admission * * * of the truth of all material statements of fact contained in the bill which are well pleaded, but not of the inferences or conclusions of law which the plaintiff has seen fit to incorporate therein."Williams v. Mathewson, 73 N.H. 242, 60 A. 687.It does not admit allegations which are not well pleaded (Pearson v. Tower, 55 N.H. 36, 38), and the allegation that the conveyance of January 27, 1930, was "made for the purpose of deceiving and defrauding creditors," being an allegation of fraud couched in general terms, is bad on demurrer(Blood v. Manchester Electric Light Company, 68 N.H. 340, 39 A. 335;Berlin Taxpayers' Ass'n v. Mayor and City Council of Berlin, 87 N.H. 80, 81, 173 A....