Collins v. Collins

• Decision Date: 06 September 1902
• Citation: 63 N.J.E. 602,52 A. 1115
• Parties: COLLINS v. COLLINS.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

52 A. 1115

63 N.J.E. 602

COLLINS

v. COLLINS.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Sept. 6, 1902.

Action by Thomas Collins against John Collins. Decree for complainant.

Alan H. Strong, for complainant.

Mr. Cowenhoven, for defendant.

STEVENS, V. C. The bill in this case was filed to set aside, as constructively fraudulent, two conveyances; the first made by Thomas Collins, to his son John Collins, on December 9, 1898, of a house and lot in Hamilton street, and the second by the same grantor to the same grantee on August 13, 1901, of a house and three lots in Division street. The grantor is 79 or 80 years old. He is an Irishman by birth, and he came to this country in the yea 1805 or 1860. He worked at first as a day laborer, and afterwards made a living by selling milk, butter, and eggs. He had three sons,—John, Thomas, and James. James died several years ago, leaving one son. The above properties were bought with money earned by Thomas Collins, Sr., and by his three sons. The evidence would seem to indicate that Thomas had contributed most toward the purchase money. James gave but little. The title to the above lots and another lot of small value in Bethune street was taken in the father's name. It has never been seriously asserted by the sons that he was not the real owner. Thomas Collins, Sr., was apparently of a quarrelsome disposition. Several years ago he ejected John from a part of the property, and in July, 1901, he ejected Thomas. He is old and infirm. His head troubles him. His speech is so thick that it was with difficulty that he could be understood on the witness stand. The deed to John for the Hamilton street property was a pure gift. It is expressed to be for the sum of $1. It was understood at the time that Thomas was to have the rents of the property for his life, and he has in fact been permitted to take them; but no reservation to this effect was made in the deed. This is fatal to it. Mulock v. Mulock, 31 N. J. Eq. 594; Martling v. Martling, 47 N. J. Eq. 122, 20 Atl. 41; White v. White, 60 N. J. Eq. 104, 45 Atl. 767. As to the conveyance of the Division street lots, it is doubtful, on the testimony, whether it was intended as a gift, or whether it was made for a consideration confessedly inadequate. Both John and his father, who, of course, are on opposite sides in this case, testify to facts showing that it was, if anything, a gift. John swears repeatedly, and in the most explicit manner, that it was a gift, and not a purchase; while Mr. Cowenhoven, the solicitor who prepared the deed, swears that it was made for the consideration expressed in it, viz., $500. Viewed in either light, it seems to me that it cannot stand. It was substantially a conveyance of everything that Thomas Collins had. Although the deed is in terms "subject to the life estate of the said Thomas Collins," it practically leaves him almost destitute. It is testified to by Thomas Collins, Sr., that the house would not rent for more than $8 or $10 a month. As the taxes amount to nearly $50, and as the insurance and repairs have to be provided for, there would be very little left. It is admitted that Thomas, the son, contributed out of his earnings to a considerable part of the money which went to pay for the property. To disinherit him would be most unfair. The conveyance was...