Logan v. Simmons

• Decision Date: 30 June 1845
• Citation: 38 N.C. 487,3 Ired.Eq. 487
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: BENJAMIN LOGAN v. SQUIRE SIMMONS et al.

3 Ired.Eq. 487

38 N.C. 487

BENJAMIN LOGAN

v.SQUIRE SIMMONS et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June Term, 1845.

Where a woman, who was about to be married, made a voluntary conveyance of all her valuable property, on the day before the marriage, without the assent or knowledge of her intended husband, to a son by a former marriage, and it was agreed that this conveyance should be kept secret; Held that a Court of Equity will consider it a fraud upon the expected rights of the husband, and will declare it void against him.

Such a fraud can only be relieved against in a Court of Equity, because, at law, the conveyance, being good against the wife, is also good against the the husband, who claims through her.

Whether, if a woman, during the course of a treaty of marriage, make, without notice to the intended husband, a conveyance of any part of her property, such conveyance would in itself be fraudulent, quære?

It certainly would be fraudulent, if designed to deceive the intended husband.

A knowledge of the facts shewn clearly to exist in the husband after the marriage, and acquiescence in any thing done under the conveyance, cannot purge the fraud and set up the conveyance, but it would be evidence tending to shew a communication of the facts before the marriage.

The case of Logan v. Simmons, 1 Dev. & Bat. 13, approved.

This cause was commenced in September, 1841, in Rutherford Court of Equity, and, having been set for hearing at the Spring Term, 1845, of that Court, was by consent of parties transmitted to the Supreme Court.

The following appeared from the pleadings and proofs in the case, to be the material facts.

On the 12th day of February, 1818, the plaintiff intermarried with Phebe Simmons, in Rutherford county, where they both resided. She was a widow, and had, by a former marriage, four children, all of whom were grown and married, and had removed from their mother's. The defendant, Squire Simmons, was one of the children, and resided on the same tract of land, and five or six hundred yards from his mother. The exact difference between the ages of the plaintiff and Mrs. Simmons does not appear, but it was considerable, and it seems probable that she had a child as old as the plaintiff, and it is stated by the witnesses, that she was not a robust woman, but of rather feeble health, and subject to occasional attacks of hystericks. The plaintiff had little or no property, (it is said only one mare) but was a blacksmith, and industrious and skilful in his trade, though he sometimes drank too much, but not habitually, as far as appears; and his situation, habits and character, were well known by Mrs. Simmons, as he had been brought up, and then lived within a mile of her residence. Mrs. Simmons was in very moderate circumstances. She owed about $200 at the time of her second marriage; and she then owned and possessed two female slaves, of whom one was thirty-seven years old and had ceased childbearing, and the other was a girl, named Poll, about sixteen years old. Besides those slaves, she had one or two horses, a few cattle and hogs, some little household stuff, and implements of husbandry; and seems to have been entitled to dower in a small piece of land, on which she resided. On the 11th day of February, 1818, Mrs. Simmons conveyed by deed of gift to her son, Squire Simmons, the two negroes absolutely and in possession, reserving, however, to herself, the first living child, which the girl Poll might have. After the marriage of the plaintiff, he resided with his wife, in the house previously owned by her, until her death in 1828; and he retained possession of the two slaves and several children, born, during that period, of the woman Poll. But soon after the death of his mother, the defendant Simmons got the negroes into his possession, and set up a claim to them under the conveyance to him of February 11th, 1818. The plaintiff then instituted an action of detinue against Simmons for the negroes, upon the ground, that the conveyance to the defendant was a fraud upon his marital rights and void; and judgment was given therein against the plaintiff, in December, 1834, because the deed constituted a good title at law, and could be treated as infected with fraud, in a Court of Equity only.--Upon that decision having been made, the plaintiff filed a bill in the Court of Equity against Simmons, impeaching the deed as fraudulent, upon the ground of the deception thereby practised on him, and the defendant answered, and orders were made and proofs taken in the cause; but by a fire in 1839, the court house of Rutherford was burnt, and all the papers and records of the Court of Equity, including the bill, answer and proofs in that cause, were destroyed. The present bill was filed in May, 1841, and charges that the plaintiff had addressed Mrs. Simmons for more than a year before the marriage, and that they had been engaged for several weeks, and that it was known to the defendant, Simmons: that Mrs. Simmons had notoriously the possession and property in the slaves during the courtship and long before, and continued in the possession and apparent ownership of them at the time of the marriage, and that the plaintiff was thereby induced to believe, and did believe, that the slaves belonged to his said intended wife at the marriage, and would by that event be vested in him as a provision for his wife, himself and their family, if they should have any; and that the plaintiff knew nothing to the contrary until the defendant got the negroes into his possession after the death of his mother, when, for the first time, he discovered that the deed had been made. The bill further charges, that it was expressly designed by the intended wife and her son, to deceive the plaintiff, as to the title of the negroes, as the plaintiff had, upon inquiry, ascertained, that it was agreed between them at the making of the deed on the day before the marriage, that its existence should be kept a secret, and that the donor should still keep the negroes in her possession as the apparent owner; and that, accordingly, the deed was never published, but remained unknown by any person, except the parties and subscribing witness, until the defendant, Simmons, caused it to be proved and registered in March, 1828, during the extreme and dying sickness of his mother. The bill further states, that shortly before filing the present bill, the defendant, Graham, took a conveyance from the other defendant for one of the children of Poll, by the name of Jacob; and that he, Graham, had been the Attorney and Solicitor for Simmons in the previous suits, and knew of the plaintiff's title, and paid no valuable consideration for the negro. The prayer is, that the deed from the wife may be declared fraudulent and decreed to be delivered up to be cancelled, and that it may be decreed, that the defendants convey to the plaintiff the said negroes and their increase, and account with him for the profits.

The answer of Simmons states, that the match between the plaintiff and his wife was a very unfit one, as she was much the older and was exceedingly infirm, and that he had no property and was dissolute in his life: that the courtship was not of long continuance, and was unknown to himself or to the other children of the intended wife, as was also the marriage: and that her infirmities continued after the marriage during her life, and that the plaintiff treated her at all times with neglect and indifference, and sometimes with cruelty. So that, the defendant states, he fully believes the plaintiff's sole object in soliciting and consummating the marriage, was to get the slaves and other little property belonging to the other party.

The answer states, that during the minority of the defendant, and after he came to full age, up to his marriage at five and twenty, he resided with his mother and attended to her and her aflairs, and that she often declared, as was well known in the family, her intention to give the negroes to this defendant in return for his services; that the execution of this intention had been deferred from time to time; but that on the 11th of February, 1818, his mother told him, “that life was uncertain, and she wanted then to make him a bill of sale for her two negroes;” and she then did so, and also delivered them into his hands, in the presence of John Parker, who became the subscribing witness to the deeds. The answer proceeds to state, that the mother then told Parker to say nothing about the bills of sale for awhile, as she did not wish to offend W. K. Hunt, who had married one of her daughters, and who, she was afraid, would abuse his wife, if he should know that she had conveyed the negroes to her son; and that there was no concealment for any other purpose spoken of. The answer further states, that the defendant was unwilling to take the negroes away, “as his mother's condition required their services, and that after he got the deeds he said to her, that he would leave them and lend them to her until he should call for them.” The answer denies, that the defendant then knew or believed, that his mother intended to marry again, much less, that she would marry the plaintiff; and also denies, that he was present at the marriage, or had heard that it was to take place, and states that his first knowledge upon the subject was when he heard of it the day after its celebration. The answer states, that the reasons for not registering the deed, at the first, were, that the defendant was ignorant of the legal necessity for it, and that he wished to comply with his mother's injunction on that point, on account of keeping it from her son in law, Hunt; and that, afterwards, he had another reason, which was, that he became desirous of saving his mother from the insult and violence she would probably receive from the plaintiff, if he knew that she had made the deeds to him. But the answer further states, that the deeds were never...