Hallett v. Parker

• Decision Date: 12 March 1897
• Parties: HALLETT et al. v. PARKER et ux.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

39 A. 583

69 N.H. 134

HALLETT et al.

v. PARKER et ux.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Grafton.

March 12, 1897.

Exceptions from Grafton county.

Bill by H. K. Hallett, as an administrator of George Parr, deceased, and another, against Ira Parker and wife. From a decree for plaintiffs, defendants bring exceptions. Exceptions sustained.

Bill in equity, praying that the defendants, Ira Parker and his wife, Mandnne A. Parker, be required to convey to the plaintiffs the Oak Hill House. On March 7, 1894, Ira received a deed of the Oak Hill House property, and on the same day he gave a bond to George Farr and Eliza C. Farr to convey to them the same premises upon certain conditions, which have been fulfilled. Mandane did not sign the bond. A decree was made directing ira to make conveyance of said premises to the plaintiffs by good and sufficient deed of warranty, with the said Mandane joined as grantor in said conveyance, as the wife of said Ira, for the release of all her rights of dower and homestead and any other rights she might have in the same. To this decree the defendants excepted on the ground that Mandane, not being a party to the contract, is under no obligation to join in the deed.

Bingham, Mitchell & Batchellor and Drew, Jordan & Buckley, for plaintiffs.

George H. Bingham, for defendants.

WALLACE, J. The only question raised is whether Mandane should have been required by the decree to join her husband in the conveyance of the land described in the bond to the plaintiffs. He executed and delivered to the plaintiffs the bond to convey the land to them at the same time he received the deed. The reception of the deed and the giving of the bond were simultaneous acts and parts of the same transaction. He never owned the land when he was not under an equitable obligation to convey it. He never had any interest in it independent of the agreement to convey embodied in the bond. His wife has no more interest in the premises than she would have in land of which her husband's seisin was instantaneous or which he was under obligation to convey at the time of marriage. Adams v. Hill, 29 N. H. 202; Hunkins v. Hunkins, 65 N. H. 95, 18 Atl. 655. Ira held the land in controversy in trust for George Farr and Eliza C. Farr, to be conveyed to them upon the performance of the condition of the bond. The widow of a trustee does not have dower in the lands held in trust by her husband. Hopkinson v. Dumas, 42 N. H. 290, 306; 1 Washb. Real Prop. 204; 1 Perry,...