Iauch v. de Socarras

• Decision Date: 05 February 1898
• Parties: IAUCH v. DE SOCARRAS et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

39 A. 370

56 N.J.E. 538

IAUCH

v. DE SOCARRAS et al.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Feb. 5, 1898.

Bill in equity by Louis C. Iauch against Pauline De Socarras and another. Heard on bill, the joint answer of the two defendants, the cross bill of Pauline De Socarras, and the replication of the complainant thereto. Bill and cross bill dismissed.

Heisley & Morris, for complainant.

Thomas P. McKenna and Frank P. McDermott, for defendants.

PITNEY, V. C. The bill is filed by a Judgment creditor of Pauline De Socarras, and its object is to set aside a settlement made by her in favor of her son, Rudolfo De Socarras, Jr., the other defendant, of certain real estate (a house and lot in Long Branch) in Monmouth county, and subject that real estate to the lien of the judgment The complainant, by his bill, alleges, and the defendants, by their answer, admit, that judgment was recovered by him in the supreme court of this state on the 6th of February, 1896, for the sum of $2,986.68, against Mrs. De Socarras, based upon an indebtedness which arose in the month of November, 1888. The defendants admit that Mrs. De Socarras was the owner of the premises from the 13th of July, 1891, up to November 8, 1895, on which day she joined with her husband, Rudolfo De Socarras, Sr., in a deed of the same to Mr. McKenna, who, by a contemporaneous conveyance, reconveyed the premises to Mrs. De Socarras in trust for the benefit of her son, Rudolfo De Socarras, Jr., she to hold the title for his benefit, support, and education during his minority, and at his majority the title to be vested in him, but, if he should die before arriving at the age of 21 years, then the premises to vest absolutely and forever in the said Pauline De Socarras, her heirs and assigns. Upon the case so made, the complainant's right to relief is clear. But the defendants set up a defense, which will be best understood by stating the facts upon which it is based.

Mrs. De Socarras' husband, the father of the infant defendant, is a Cuban by birth, and a physician by profession, but has not practiced his profession to any great extent. At and prior to the month of November, 1888, he was engaged in the business of a caterer in the city of New York, and was financially unsuccessful, and unable to support his family. Mrs. De Socarris had a sister, who had married a wealthy gentleman, by the name of Ballin, who lived in New York City; and she thought that as her husband was improvident and inefficient, and not to be trusted to any extent with the handling of money, if she had control of the business she could so manage it as to make a living for herself and family, and applied to her brother-in-law, Mr. Ballin, for assistance. He advanced her $2,000, and took therefor her sealed obligation, which provided that the money was to be used by her in the catering business, but that her husband should have no participation in or control of it, and that she should have therein the assistance of her father, Mr. Iauch, who was an experienced caterer and hotel keeper. Mrs. De Socarras carried on the business for a while, with the result that the investment was lost. She, however, paid three months' interest on the debt to Mr. Ballin. Shortly after this, about the year 1890, her husband's mother, a wealthy Cuban, died; and at her death Dr. De Socarras received a fortune of about $13,000, as I interpret the evidence. About $9,000 of that he invested, May, 1891, in the house and lot at Long Branch, which is the subject of the present litigation, and furniture to furnish it, moved into it with his family, and commenced the practice of medicine. His concurrent declarations were that he intended the property for the benefit of his son, the defendant Rudolfo De Socarras, Jr. A few days or weeks after Dr. and Mrs. De Socarras were comfortably settled in the house, they were visited socially by a friend, a Mr. Agramonte, when he learned the situation. In view of Dr. De Socarras' notoriously improvident habits and reckless disposition, Mr. Agramonte urged him to settle the property at once upon his son; and, after considerable discussion between the doctor and his wife and Mr. Agramonte, it was agreed that the property should be conveyed to the wife, to hold for the son. Tne reason why it was not put in the son's name at once was that he was an infant, and it might become important to sell the property and change the investment. The conveyance was made through a third party to the wife, and, as she swears, —and she is therein supported by Mr. Agramonte,—upon the express verbal understanding that she was to hold it for the benefit of the son, and in trust for him, until he became of age. The husband and wife lived together until the latter part of 1894, when his habits and conduct became such that cohabitation became undesirable; and he left her, and has since spent part of the time in Cuba, and part of the time in the neighborhood of New York, and she has not seen him since. Before leaving, he had incurred some bills for the painting of the house and some other repairs; and Mrs. De Socarras was sued upon those bills, and judgment went against her. She was also sued in a justice's court for some little sums, and judgment recovered and levy made upon the furniture in the house. Litigations resulted therefrom; but, before any judgment was docketed against her, she entered into communication with her husband, through a third party, with the result that he consented to join her in a deed, which created the settlement of November, 1895. About that time some difficulty arose between her and the complainant, who is her brother, which perhaps extended to her brother-in-law, Mr. Ballin. The particulars of the family difficulty were not...