Goodwin v. Norton

• Citation: 92 Me. 532,43 A. 111
• Parties: GOODWIN v. NORTON.
• Decision Date: 01 April 1899
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)

43 A. 111

92 Me. 532

GOODWIN

v. NORTON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

April 1, 1899.

(Official.)

Report from supreme Judicial court, York county.

Action by Emily A. Goodwin against Daniel C. Norton. Judgment for demandant.

This was a real action brought to recover possession of a lot of land, with the buildings thereon, situated in the village of Cape Neddick, in the town of York. Plea, general issue.

The plaintiff introduced evidence to show that on the 20th day of October, 1869, Gersham C. Freeman and George M. Freeman, by warranty deed, conveyed the premises in dispute to Asahel Goodwin, but not recorded until after alteration. The defendant contended that the deed was made running to Harriet Goodwin, wife of Asahel. The plaintiff claimed that, in 1870, Asahel Goodwin went to Chester, N. H., where the Freemans were then living, and, in the absence of Gersham, told George that he was in difficulty, and wanted to change the deed, and, in the presence of George, took the deed from his pocket, and erased his name as grantee, and inserted the name of his wife, Harriet Goodwin, and that Gersham knew nothing of this change, and never consented to it. When Asahel returned from Chester he caused the deed to be recorded, which showed the title in his wife, Harriet. Before this transaction, judgment had been recovered against Asahel Goodwin in the United States court at New York for the sum of $29,410 debt or damage, and $182.12 costs of suit. This judgment was recovered in May. 1868, and suit was brought on that judgment in the United States circuit court, district of Maine, returnable to the April term, 1871, and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff for the sum of $26,395.24 debt or damage, and $107.33 costs of suit. Execution did not issue until August 26, 1879. On the 14th day of July, 1879, John Goodwin, a brother of Asahel, brought suit in the supreme judicial court of this state, and an attachment of Asahel's real estate was made and duly recorded. The plaintiff, John Goodwin, at the January term, 1880, of the supreme judicial court, recovered judgment against Asahel for the sum of $1,241.48 debt or damage, and $11.75 costs of suit. Judgment was recovered on the 6th day of February, 1880, and on the 25th day of the same month the premises in dispute were levied upon as the property of Asahel, and set off to John Goodwin, the creditor, on the 28th day of February, 1880.

Emily Goodwin, the plaintiff in this action, and sister to John and Asahel Goodwin, offered further evidence showing that at the solicitation of Asahel Goodwin, on the 9th day of June, 1881, she purchased the premises from John Goodwin, and paid him $1,000. There were present at the time John and Asahel Goodwin, Nathaniel Marshall, the attorney of Asahel, and Mrs. Emily Goodwin. Asahel's wife was in and out of the room where the business was being transacted, the business being done in the house upon the premises, where Emily was living with Asahel and his wife, Harriet.

Asahel died in 1883. Emily and Harriet, Asahel's wife, continued to live upon the premises until Harriet's death, in July, 1896, except in winters, when they both went to visit relatives. December 27, 1894, Harriet Goodwin, while on a visit to Daniel C. Norton, the defendant, made a will giving to said Norton all her property, and appointing him executor of her will; at the same time she executed and delivered to said Norton a warranty deed of the premises, which deed was not recorded until July 9, 1896, two days after Harriet's death, and about nineteen months after it was delivered. There was evidence that no consideration was paid for the deed to Norton. Immediately after the death of Harriet the defendant took possession of the premises.

The contentions of the defendant and other facts are stated in the opinion.

Argued before PETERS, C. J., and EMERY, HASKELL WHITEHOUSE, STROUT, and SAVAGE, JJ.

Geo. F. & Leroy Haley and Josiah Chase, for plaintiff.

H. H. Burbank and J. C. Stewart, for defendant.

SAVAGE, J. Real action. At one time George M. Freeman was the owner of the demanded premises. "To protect himself from his creditors," he conveyed them to his son Gersham C. Freeman. Later the father and son joined in a deed of the same to Asahel Goodwin, who went into possession. At a still later date, as appears by the testimony of George M. Freeman, Asahel Goodwin took this last-named deed, which had never been recorded, to George M. Freeman, who was one of the grantors, and said he "had got into difficulties, and would like...