Dunn v. Ryan
| Decision Date | 17 November 1913 |
| Citation | 82 N.J.Eq. 356,88 A. 1025 |
| Parties | DUNN v. RYAN et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Court of Chancery.
Bill by Simon Dunn against James V. Ryan and Mary Ryan. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals. Affirmed.
William Tyacke, Jr., and George E. Clymer, both of Newark, for appellant.
W. W. Cutler, of Morristown, for appellees.
In March, 1912, the complainant (a man about 80 years old, whose wife had recently died) conveyed to the defendants by deed in fee, reserving to himself a life estate, his dwelling house and premises, worth about $3,000, for the consideration of $1,000 in cash and the execution by the defendants of a written agreement to take care of him, next mentioned.
The grantor, by the express terms of his grant, provided that he should retain possession of the premises as long as he should live, and by a separate agreement in writing (executed practically at the same time as the deed) obtained from the defendants their covenant under seal, reciting that in consideration of said conveyance from him they promised and agreed in these words, viz., "to take care of him as long as he lives, providing him with a home and rendering him whatever services he requires."
After the execution of these papers the defendant Mrs. Ryan, with the assistance of her daughter, seems by the evidence given at the hearing to have proceeded to carry out in good faith this contract until, in the month of May next ensuing, the complainant, by his conduct and demeanor toward the daughter, made it so unpleasant and unbearable for her that she became sick and went home. When her mother shortly thereafter came to take her place, the complainant said to her it was too late as he had begun the present suit.
This suit was commenced on May 31, 1912, by the filing of an injunction bill by the complainant against the grantees of the deed praying that they be decreed to execute to the complainant a deed for the premises he had conveyed to them in March upon his payment to them of $1,000, and that they might be restrained from conveying away or incumbering the premises, and for other relief. There is no specific prayer in the bill that the deed be set aside or declared void, but such in effect was the final relief sought.
The particular grounds for equitable interference on which the bill is based are that the defendants have not provided complainant with a home, and have not furnished him the necessaries of life according to their agreement under which he conveyed the property, and have refused to do so, although often requested.
There is a general charge in the bill that the defendants induced complainant to make the conveyance never intending to take care of him or provide him with the necessaries of life but fraudulently induced him to make the conveyance....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caullett v. Stanley Stilwell & Sons, Inc.
...land of the promisee.' (Ibid., at pp. 3150--51). In substantial accord with the Restatement analysis are Dunn v. Ryan, 82 N.J.Eq. 356, 88 A. 1025, 49 L.R.A.,N.S., 1015 (E. & A. 1913), and Butterhof v. Butterhof, 84 N.J.L. 285, 86 A. 394 (E. & A. 1913), holding that the breach of deed provis......
-
Kinnear v. Ballagh
...by this default, if any. The principle involved is that laid down by the Court of Errors and Appeals in Dunn v. Ryan, 82 N. J. Eq. 356, 88 A. 1025, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1015. No claim was made by the grantors that the property had reverted, and in fact it would seem that after the death of J......