Collier v. Collier

• Decision Date: 08 November 1895
• Citation: 33 A. 193
• Parties: COLLIER v. COLLIER.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

33 A. 193

COLLIER

v. COLLIER.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Nov. 8, 1895.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Bill by Andrew M. Collier against John J. Collier for injunction and to correct deed. Dismissed.

Samuel G. H. Wright, for complainant.

Abel I. Smith and Mr. Mabon, for defendant.

BIRD, V. C. The defendant in this case having instituted an action in ejectment to recover possession of certain lands, and the complainant coming into this court alleging a mistake in one of the deeds of conveyance under which the defendant claims title, and that the deed which conveyed the title directly to him was procured by fraud, and that the certificate of acknowledgment thereto was illegal, and praying that the former deed might be corrected, and that the latter might be declared null and void because of the fraud and of the illegal acknowledgment, and that the defendant might be enjoined from prosecuting his said action at law; and, failing to establish either the mistake or the fraud, the complainant insists that, since the court had jurisdiction of the questions of mistake and fraud, it has also jurisdiction of the question raised respecting the legality of the acknowledgment, and should therefore proceed to determine that question, notwithstanding the question of the pendency of the action at law. The legal title of the land in question was at one time in the name of the complainant. He conveyed it to his mother. By his bill of complaint he alleges that there was a mistake in this deed, in that the words "heirs and assigns" were inserted, thereby conveying an estate in fee simple absolute, when it was the intention of the parties that only a life estate should be conveyed to the grantee. In this respect he prays that this deed may be reformed. He also alleges that his mother became weak and feeble in mind, and that by fraud and undue influence she was prevailed upon to execute a deed of conveyance for the same premises to the defendant,—another of her sons. For this reason the complainant asks that the last-named deed may be declared void. It is also alleged that when the commissioner of deeds who took the acknowledgment examined the grantor he did not take her examination separate and apart from her husband, and that, consequently, the acknowledgment is ineffectual, and that the deed is likewise void for this reason.

The effort to establish the mistake or the fraud because of the weakness of the mother, or of undue influence in procuring the conveyance to the defendant, has not been successful. Failure in these important particulars, I think, terminates the right of this court to proceed. In other words, when an action at law is sought to be restrained by suit in equity, and part of the grounds upon which the bill rests are purely of equitable cognizance, and part, when considered separately are strictly of legal cognizance, and the proofs do not establish the allegations which are of purely equitable cognizance, a court of equity has not jurisdiction to further restrain the action at law, and proceed to...