Freeman v. James T. Hartman Et Ux.

• Decision Date: 30 September 1867
• Citation: 45 Ill. 57,1867 WL 5220,92 Am.Dec. 193
• Parties: BENJAMIN F. FREEMANv.JAMES T. HARTMAN et ux.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

45 Ill. 57

1867 WL 5220 (Ill.)

92 Am.Dec. 193

BENJAMIN F. FREEMAN

v.JAMES T. HARTMAN et ux.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1867.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Knox county; the Hon. JOHN S. THOMPSON, Judge, presiding.

The facts in this case are fully stated in the opinion.

Messrs. FROST & TUNNICLIFF, for the appellant.

Messrs. LANPHERE & PRICE, for the appellees. Mr. JUSTICE LAWRENCE delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a bill in chancery, filed by James T. Hartman and his wife, Henrietta Hartman, to set aside a deed made by her to her brother, Benjamin F. Freeman, the appellant herein, in November, 1862, three days before her marriage to Hartman. The deed conveyed, upon a consideration of $200, her undivided interest in the farm formerly owned by her father, and since his death occupied by the widow and children. Her interest is shown by the proof to have been worth, at the time of the conveyance, between $800 and $900. The bill seeks a rescission of the deed on the ground of constructive fraud by the brother toward his sister, and also because the conveyance was in fraud of the marital rights of the husband. The case came on to a hearing upon bill, answer, replication and proof, and the court decreed a rescission of the conveyance on the return of the purchase money and interest, and also payment of rent. The defendant appealed.

It appears that the father, Fauntleroy Freeman, left at his death a widow and seven children, of whom the appellant, Benjamin, was the eldest. He was at that time not quite twenty-one years of age. His sister Henrietta, now Mrs. Hartman, complainant in this suit, was about nineteen. From the death of the father in 1856, to the marriage of Mrs. Hartman in 1862, the family continued to live together on the paterna farm which was managed by Benjamin. They seem from the evidence to have lived harmoniously, and to have all contributed by their industry to the common welfare, Benjamin being the recognized head and manager of affairs abroad, and the mother and daughters performing the domestic labors. Mrs. Hartman was, for a part of the time, engaged in teaching, and the witnesses called by the appellant show she did much of the family sewing. The attempt therefore of the appellant, to explain the low price he paid her for her interest in the farm, by setting up an indebtedness against her for her board and clothing, must be considered as failing. We must consider these expenses abundantly compensated by her personal services and her interest, as one of the heirs, in the profits of the farm. It appears, from the testimony of the mother, who was called as a witness by the appellant, that the deed to him was executed at his suggestion, and the reason then given was, that trouble might be avoided in future. As the appellant must be regarded from the evidence in the record as having stood to his sister in loco parentis, we are inclined to the opinion that the conveyance to him of his sister's interest in the farm for less than one-fourth of its value requires an explanation which he has failed to give.

We do not, however, place our disposition of the case on that ground.

It is a settled rule that a voluntary conveyance by a woman, on the eve of her marriage, of property which her intended husband knew her to own, made without his knowledge, is void as against him, because in derogation of his marital rights and just expectations. Strathmore v. Bones, 1 Ves. 22; England v. Downs, 2 Beav. 522; Logan v. Simmons, 3 Ired. Ch....