Ladd v. Rice

• Decision Date: 10 August 1876
• Citation: 57 N.H. 374
• Parties: Ladd v. Rice.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

57 N.H. 374

Ladd v. Rice.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

August 10, 1876

Fraud---Misrepresentation---Surprise.

The defendants, acting as confidential friends and advisers of the plaintiff, a widow, who during her husband's life held real estate in her own right to her sole and separate use, by falsely representing to her that her real estate was liable to be seized for her deceased husband's debts, and by other fraudulent devices, induced her to convey the real estate to one of the defendants. Held, that this conveyance having been obtained by fraud must be set aside, and a reconveyance decreed

FROM HILLSBOROUGH CIRCUIT COURT.

BILL IN EQUITY, alleging that on the second day of August, 1873, the plaintiff was the owner of a certain tract of land in her own right in fee simple; that at the time she purchased it she was the wife of Geo. W. Ladd, who is now dead; that at the time of his death he had no right, interest, or claim in or to it, and that it was not, at the time of his death or at any time after, subject to any claim of his creditors or his administrator in law or equity; that she purchased it from her own money, acquired from her own earnings previous to her marriage; that she being ignorant of her own rights and of the rights of the creditors and administrator of her husband's estate in said land, and as to her liability to pay the debts of her husband, and being on terms of friendly intercourse with the defendants, consulted and advised with them in regard to the matters aforesaid, and the defendants craftily professing great friendship for her, induced her to confide in them, and, for the purpose of obtaining from her a conveyance of said land with the intent to cheat and defraud her out of the same, falsely and fraudulently represented that she was liable to pay the debts of her husband, and that the creditors of his estate had the legal right to take said land from her, and that it was necessary in order to secure said land to her that she should convey the same to them to hold in trust for her; that, confiding in said representations, she was induced to execute and deliver to said Lucy P. Rice a deed of said premises, and the defendants now claim under said conveyance; that since the giving of said conveyance she has often requested the defendants to execute a release of all right and title acquired by them by virtue thereof, and particularly on August 13, 1874, she presented to the defendants a release of said land for the signatures of the defendants, and demanded of them the execution of said release, offering to pay whatever expense they or either of them were subjected to.

The bill prays for an injunction, and for an order that they release all right and title to said land acquired by said conveyance, and for general relief.

The defendants, in their answer, deny all the material allegations in

the bill, except the fact of said conveyance, and alleged that they bought said land of the complainant, and paid for the same; that they subsequently agreed, for a consideration which they state, to reconvey said premises to the plaintiff and that they are ready to do when she performs her part of the agreement.

This case was referred to a referee, under the statute of 1874 who reports that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for.

At the request of the defendants, he reports the facts found proved by him, as follows:

"The defendants, at the commencement of the hearing, waived all questions as to the jurisdiction of the court over the subject-matter in controversy. The plaintiff was seized of the premises described in the bill, as therein alleged. The plaintiff's husband died in April, 1873, and the plaintiff...