Graves v. Blondell

• Citation: 70 Me. 190
• Parties: SAMUEL P. GRAVES, in equity, v. JOHN F. BLONDELL & others.
• Decision Date: 05 September 1879
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)

70 Me. 190

SAMUEL P. GRAVES, in equity, v. JOHN F. BLONDELL & others.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

September 5, 1879

BILL IN EQUITY, heard on plea in bar, answer and proof.

CASE stated in the opinion.

W Gilbert, for the plaintiff.

G Barron & W. Thompson, for the defendants.

LIBBEY J.

This case comes before this court on bill, plea in bar, answer and proof. The plaintiff, in his bill, alleges that, on June 17 1876, Andrew J. Graves was seized in fee and possessed of a certain farm, situated in Topsham, and on that day conveyed it to the defendants, John F. Blondell and Roxana E Blondell, his wife, and that they still hold the same by virtue of that conveyance; that he is informed and believes that the only consideration given for said conveyance was the undertaking of said Blondell and wife to maintain said Andrew J. Graves and his wife during their lives.

That, on said June 17, 1876, he was a creditor of said Andrew J. Graves, having a debt against him for services before that time rendered and for money laid out and expended, and on September 30, 1876, he commenced an action against said Andrew for said debt in the supreme judicial court for Sagadahoc county, and attached his real estate therein; and at the August term of said court, 1877, he recovered judgment in said action for the sum of $487.50 damages, and costs of suit taxed at $60.73; and execution was duly issued thereon September 24, 1877, and on October 1, 1877, he caused the same to be duly levied on said farm, excepting the dwelling house.

He further alleges that, at the time of said conveyance, to the best of his knowledge and belief, said Andrew had no other property liable to attachment, and in any wise available for the payment of his said debt, and that the parties to said conveyance had full knowledge of his debt, and that said Andrew had no money other than said estate with which to pay it, and that said conveyance was fraudulent as against him.

The prayer is that said Blondell and wife be required to release and convey to plaintiff the premises levied on.

The defendants, Blondell and wife, filed a plea in bar of the plaintiff's right to maintain his bill. The plea sets out, substantially, three grounds of defense.

I. It denies that the plaintiff was a creditor of said Andrew at the time of the conveyance, although it does not deny the rendition of the judgment as alleged in the bill.

II. It denies any fraud in the conveyance.

III. It avers that before the conveyance was made the plaintiff had knowledge of their intention to take it, and said to Mrs. Blondell, in the presence of her husband, " You are welcome to all there is there if you and Fred will go and take care of the old folks," and to Mr. Blondell, at the same time, " Fred, if you go there, don't be such a ____ fool as I have been. You get a deed of it before you go." It does not aver that the defendants were induced thereby to take the conveyance. There are various other matters set forth in the plea, but they all bear upon the points above stated.

To this plea exception was taken by the complainant on the ground that it did not specifically answer all the allegations of the bill. No exception was taken to the sufficiency of the plea in other respects. The exception was presented to one of the justices of the court, and overruled. This ruling was correct. In equity the defendant may plead to the whole bill or to a part only. If to the whole bill, no answer need be made. If to a part only, he must answer to the rest.

The facts pleaded in this case, if well pleaded, are a bar to the bill, admitting all the allegations to be true. In such case it is not necessary that the plea should notice, and specifically admit or deny, all the allegations of the bill. For the purpose of deciding the validity of the plea, the bill, so far as not contradicted by the plea, is admitted to be true. Story Eq. Pl., § 694.

The plea appears to be open to the charge of duplicity. Story Eq. Pl., § 654. But it becomes unnecessary to determine its sufficiency, as the defendants, Blondell and wife, after filing it on motion therefor, had leave to file and did file an answer which presents the same grounds of defense.

In their answer they admit that said Andrew J. Graves was the owner of the farm; that they took the conveyance thereof from him as alleged in the bill, and that the consideration therefor was a bond given by them to him for the maintenance of himself and wife during their lives, and the payment of a note given by him to one Jaques on which there were about $90 then due. They also say that Blondell was to pay the taxes then due on the farm, and discharge a debt which he had against said Andrew for about $40, although not mentioned in the bond.

They admit that, before and at the time they took the conveyance, they knew that the plaintiff and his family had lived on the premises with said Andrew, and had performed services there; but allege that, before that time, they had been informed and believed that said Andrew had conveyed to the plaintiff a house lot, and that, at the time the conveyance was made, said Andrew informed said John F., who was acting for his wife as well as himself, that he was not indebted to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff had received payment from time to time for his services, and that the house lot was conveyed to him and accepted as a full payment for the balance due him on account of his services.

They allege that, previous to the acceptance of the conveyance, they had a conversation with the plaintiff relative to their intent to take it, and that the plaintiff then said to Mrs. Blondell, in the presence of her husband, " You are welcome to all there is there if you and Fred will go and take care of the old folks, and I will never claim a ____ cent; " and immediately afterwards, addressing himself to Mr. Blondell, whom he called Fred, the plaintiff said: " Fred, if you go there, don't be such a ____ fool as I have been. You get a deed of it before you go." There is no allegation that the defendants were induced to take the conveyances by these assurances.

They allege some facts tending to show that the plaintiff was not a creditor, but they do not deny it; nor do they deny the recovery of the judgment, and the levy on the farm as alleged in the bill.

They deny all intent to defraud the...