Cheuvront v. Cheuvront.
| Decision Date | 21 November 1903 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Cheuvront v. Cheuvront. |
While it is a general rule that where a party who seeks to cancel a contract for fraud in its procurement the plaintiff must allege and show himself eager, ready and willing to place the other party to the contract in statu quo; yet in case of a wife who sues to annul a contract of separation and settling property rights between her husband and herself, and it is alleged that the execution of the contract was procured from her by false and fraudulent representations of defendant and his agent, fa^ely representing that it was the purpose of the defendant to live with and support the wife and the object of the contract to reconcile and restore their marital relations; and it sufficiently appears from said bill that plaintiff is not able to repay the money given her by the defendant to induce her to execute the contract. Held, not error to overrule the demurrer to the bill. (p. 176).
In order to have the advantage in the appellate court of objections to depositions being read in a cause, for want of proper authentication, or proper certification by the officer taking the same, the objections to the reading of the depositions, must be made in the court below and the defective authentication or certificate with the objection copied into and made part of the record as provided in section 6, chapter 135, Code. (p. 178).
In a suit brought by a wife against the husband to set aside and cancel a deed or contract between them for fraud in its procurement, by which contract the husband obtained an advantage over her, the burden of proof is on the husband to show that the wife was fully informed as to the effects of the transaction and also the utmost fairness thereof, (p. 178).
Appeal and supersedeas from Circuit Court, Harrison County. Action by Elizabeth Cheuvront against Joseph Cheuvront. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
D. Ill Leonard, for appellee. W. S. Stewart, for appellant.
McWitorter, President:
This is a suit brought by Elizabeth Cheuvront against Joseph Cheuvront, her husband, and W. S. Stuart, trustee, to set aside a deed or contract entered into between them, dated the 30th day of October, 1899, because the same was procured to be signed and executed by her by fraud and misrepresentations. It appears from the allegations of the bill that said plaintiff and defendant Joseph Cheuvront were married on the 22d day of November, 1897. At the time of their marriage plaintiff was a widow having four children at home with her, the youngest being about 12 years of age. Plaintiff was living in Parkcrsburg, West Virginia, carrying on the grocery business, and where she continued to live until the 9th of January, 1898, when she removed to West Union in Doddridge county to live with her husband, a part of the time keeping hotel in what was known as the "Grant Hotel" until April 1898; that defendant treated plaintiff so cruelly that she returned to Parkcrsburg and rented a house and commenced keeping boarders for the purpose of maintaining herself and children; that the defendant failed to contribute to her support and she was compelled to support herself and family without any assistance from her husband; that she brought suit against her husband in the circuit court of Doddridge county in October 1898 for divorce and alimony, charging cruel and inhuman treatment, and charging defendant with being guilty of open and notorious acts of adultery and fornication with numerous females, and praying for money to pay her counsel fees and for alimony pendente lite; that while she was so conducting her boarding house W. J. Horner and his wife, Maggie Horner, on the 31st day of October, 1899 came to plaintiff's house with a deed or contract all ready prepared and represented to plaintiff that defendant Joseph Cheuvront was very anxious to become reconciled to plaintiff and that if plaintiff would sign said contract and agree to dismiss her suit which was then pending in Doddridge county for divorce and alimony, that defendant Cheuvront would immediately come to Parkersburg and would reside with and take care of plaintiff and would treat her kindly and be a good husband to her; that said Cheuvront was rich, owned a large amount of property and was well able to support plaintiff who was wearing her life out at hard work and drudgery in and about her boarding house and earning money for the support of her and her four children who were living with her; that Horner claimed to be representing her husband as his agent and offered to pay plaintiff four hundred dollars if she would sign said contract and become reconciled to her husband Joseph Cheuvront; that at the time, plaintiff was sick and nervous and had a great desire to have a home and be reconciled, and re-united to said Cheuvront if he would live and cohabit with her and treat her kindly and be a husband to her, and that without consulting anyone, not even her attorneys in said suit and without properly understanding the contract with the assurance that said defendant would immediately go to Parkersburg on the same night, and with a promise that said Horner would at once telephone for him to come, plaintiff accepted the four hundred dollars and signed the contract; that plaintiff afterwards learned that Cheuvront had employed Horner as his agent and had given him $750 to pay to the said plaintiff providing she would sign the contract and that Cheuvront had no intention of coming to live with plaintiff, but that said contract was gotten up and prepared for the purpose of defrauding the plaintiff out of her marital rights as his wife and that Horner made said promises for and on behalf of Cheuvront as his agent, which were false and which he knew to be false at the time, and that Cheuvront had no intention whatever, of carrying out said promises; that Horner brought a notary public to plaintiff's house and had her acknowledge, after signing said contract; that she would not have signed it had she understood it and that she was induced to sign the same through fraudulent misrepresentations of Horner and his wife, agents of said Cheuvront; that said contract was gotten up with a great deal of skill by an attorney learned in the law and purporting to be between plaintiff and W. S. Stuart, trustee, of said Cheuvront and was made for the express purpose of defrauding plaintiff out of her rights of support and dower in the large estate of said Cheuvront; that plaintiff had no knowledge of the true intent, effect and meaning of the said contract and was much surprised wdien she ascertained that her husband refused to come to Parkcrsburg and live with her, and was surprised to find that by said contract she had released defendant from all claim for support or dower in all or any part of his property, which property was carefully described and set up in said contract; that according to the expectancy of life her dower rights in said property woidd be quite valuable; that she had no separate property of her own and had to rely upon her own labor and exertions to maintain herself and children; that it was represented to her that it was a contract for the purpose of dismissing her said suit for divorce and alimony and that as soon as she signed said contract and gave an order to dismiss the suit said Cheuvront would come and reside with her and maintain and support her and treat her as he should treat a faithful and deserving wife; that after defendant had so fraudulently procured the dismissal of said suit he wrote affectionate letters to plaintiff asking her to meet him at Pennsboro in the county of Ritchie where plaintiff did meet him about the 19th or 20th of November, 1899, where they roomed and cohabited together, sleeping in the same bed at a hotel from Saturday until Monday morning, which said Joseph Cheuvront did in furtherance of the fraud so practiced upon her after the contract was obtained from her and by him placed upon record for the purpose and with the intention of preventing plaintiff from bringing another suit for divorce and alimony against him, and praying that the contract might be cancelled, annulled and held for naught and that she be entitled to her marital rights as though said contract had never been signed by her; and for general relief.
The defendants fded their demurrer and separate answers to the bill, denying the material allegations thereof and especially denying all fraud in the procurement of the contract sought to be set aside.
The defendant, W. S. Stuart's answer alleged that he was applied to by W. J. Horner on behalf of plaintiff for the purpose of settling and compromising the divorce suit mentioned, in Doddridge county, in which respondent was counsel for Joseph Cheuvront; that he brought the matter to the attention of Cheuv- rout who consented to such compromise if it could he done on certain terms and conditions before that time offered to plaintiff through respondent, his attorney, at Parkersburg and directing respondent to carefully prepare such papers as would be binding between them and that would forever settle the matters in difference between them, which respondent did to the best of his skill and ability, the original of which contract was fled as an exhibit with the answer of Joseph Cheuvront in this cause; that Cheuvront paid over to Horner for plaintiff the sum of $750 in respondent's presence and took Horner's receipt for the same, which receipt was filed as an exhibit with Cheuvront's answer; that respondent says he knew nothing personally about what took place or was said between the plaintiff and Joseph Cheuvront or between Horner and his wife and the plaintiff; but denied that the deed or contract was prepared for the purpose of taking advantage of the plaintiff or for the express purpose of defrauding her out of her rights...
To continue reading
Request your trial