Libby v. Chase

• Decision Date: 20 January 1875
• Citation: 117 Mass. 105
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: Isaac Libby v. Ira M. Chase & others

117 Mass. 105

Isaac Libby v. Ira M. Chase & others

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

January 20, 1875

Middlesex. Bill in equity filed September 17, 1874, against Ira M. Chase, William H. Pearson and Amy Libby, to enjoin the defendants from taking possession of a farm conveyed by Amy to Pearson and by him to Chase. The bill also prayed that a portion of the estate or its equivalent in money should be allowed the plaintiff, for betterments put upon the estate and for money and labor expended upon the same by him. The bill charged fraud and conspiracy on the part of the defendants.

Hearing before Ames, J., who reported the case in substance as follows: The plaintiff and the said Amy were married October 17, 1855. On March 26, 1858, she purchased a small farm in Dracut, which was conveyed to her, her heirs and assigns, to her sole and separate use. She paid $ 800 of the purchase money with her own funds, and for the remainder she gave the joint promissory note of her husband and herself. They lived on the farm together, and he had a small stock of cattle and farming tools, and worked on the place, keeping it generally in good condition, and making some improvements, but not to any large amount. Shortly before the commencement of this suit she, by her deed duly executed and in due form of law conveyed the farm to Pearson, who afterwards on the same day conveyed the same to Chase. This was done without consulting her husband and without his consent. She thereupon removed from the place, carrying with her a large portion of the furniture of the house claiming it as her own, and leaving him in occupation of the place. I do not find any proof of a combination or conspiracy between her and Pearson and Chase or either of them, or that there was any such inadequacy of consideration in the price paid by Chase or Pearson as to furnish any indication of fraud, or that there was any fraud upon the plaintiff in fact. Before the filing of this bill Chase made a formal demand on the plaintiff for possession of the place, and threatened to eject him if he did not yield possession and quit the premises in twelve days. Chase was a near neighbor of the plaintiff, and knew the facts above recited generally, but it did not appear that he knew that any part of the price of the farm for which it was conveyed to the plaintiff's wife was paid or secured by him. No child was born of the marriage of the plaintiff and the said Amy. Upon these facts, it...