Hill v. Hill

• Decision Date: 29 June 1907
• Citation: 67 A. 406,74 N.H. 288
• Parties: HILL v. HILL et al.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

67 A. 406

74 N.H. 288

HILL

v. HILL et al.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Merrimack.

June 29, 1907.

Transferred from Superior Court; Wallace, Chief Judge.

Bill by Alice J. Hill against Samuel D. Hill and another. Case transferred from the trial term on a reserved question. Decree for plaintiff, and case discharged.

Bill in equity to set aside a deed as fraudulent against the plaintiff's homestead and dower rights, and for other relief. Trial by the court. In 1888 or 1889 Samuel D. Hill, one of the defendants, owned and lived upon a farm in Loudon worth $5,000. His children were a son and a daughter, aged, respectively, 18 and 15 years. At this time the plaintiff was employed as Hill's housekeeper for about 3 years, after which she went to Connecticut. In November, 1894, he persuaded her to return to Loudon and marry him. She had no property, and the farm constituted his entire estate. She knew he owned the farm, would not have married him if he had not owned it, and married to gain a home and her rights in the farm as his wife. The marriage took place November 22, 1894. On the morning of that day, and before the marriage was solemnized, Hill had a deed drawn up by which he conveyed the farm without consideration to his son, who was then 21 years old, reserving "one undivided half of the same, to be held, owned, and enjoyed by the said Samuel D. Hill during the term of his natural life." The son was present at the wedding. Both he and his father concealed from the plaintiff the fact that the conveyance had been made, and permitted her to marry in the belief that Samuel D. Hill was still the owner of the farm. In July, 1897, Mrs. Hill first learned of the conveyance, which was made for the purpose of preventing her from acquiring rights of dower and homestead in the farm, and was fraudulent and void as against those rights. Her knowledge of the transaction caused unpleasantness between herself and her husband, and on July 20, 1897, the following agreement under seal was drawn up with a view of settling their difficulties: "Whereas, Samuel D. Hill * * * and Alice J. Hill, his wife, are desirous of living separate and apart, owing to certain difficulties which have arisen between them: Therefore it is agreed between them, as follows: Said Samuel D. Hill, in consideration of the premises, hereby covenants, promises, and agrees with the said Alice J. Hill that she may at all times hereafter live separate and apart from him; that he will allow and permit her to be in such place or places and to carry on for her sole benefit such business as she may from time to time desire; that he will not trouble or molest her on account of her living separate from him, or sue, molest, or trouble any other person for receiving, entertaining, or harboring her; that he will not claim or demand any of her moneys, earnings, or other property that she may possess: that he will pay to her, for her own support and maintenance and to use as she may see fit, the sum of $200, giving her his promissory note therefor, payable on demand, with interest annually, signed by himself and by his son, J. Swett Hill, both as principals. Said Alice J. Hill agrees, in consideration of the premises, that she will accept said note above described in place of all other interest or claim in or to his estate, and, in case his death shall occur before hers, she agrees not to make any claim for dower or other Interest in his estate, but to receive the said sum of * * * $200 in full settlement and discharge of all interest of every kind which she may have in his estate by virtue of the marital relations." The foregoing agreement was not executed until a year later, when the plaintiff signed it and received $200. In the meantime she lived with her husband as before, and remained with him upon the farm for something over a year after she signed the agreement. At this time the son and her husband told her she must...