Mayer v. Kane

• Citation: 69 N.J.E. 733,61 A. 374
• Parties: MAYER v. KANE et ux.
• Decision Date: 14 June 1905
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

61 A. 374

69 N.J.E. 733

MAYER

v. KANE et ux.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

June 14, 1905.

Suit by Charles H. Mayer against Samuel Kane and wife. Decree advised.

This is a bill filed by Charles Mayer against Samuel Kane and Sarah, his wife. The purpose of the suit is to have declared fraudulent and void two certain conveyances of real estate made by the husband to the wife through an intermediary. These conveyances took place, respectively, on the 3d of October, 1903, and on the 26th of October, 1903, The complainant is a judgment creditor of Samuel Kane, and has a judgment against him for four hundred odd dollars, which was obtained in 1904, and under which an execution was issued and levied upon the premises in question. Heard on bill, answer, and proofs in open court.

Grey, McDermott & Enright, for complainant Max Salinger, for defendants.

GARRISON, V. C. (after stating the facts). In 1869 Samuel Kane was married to Sarah Muller. She had been a servant up to the time of her marriage, and had accumulated some money, and had in the neighborhood of $1,000 in a savings bank in the city of New York. He was a driver, in receipt of $14 a week wages. They lived in New York City for four years after their marriage. Beginning with the end of the first year, there was a boarder in the family, and the wife received the money from this boarder. In 1873 they learned of a piece of property (No. 101 Stuyvesant avenue, Jersey City) which was for sale, and they came here to inspect it. Subsequently a bargain was made by which the property was to be acquired for $2,300, of which $1,200 was represented by an existing mortgage, which was assumed, $300 by a second mortgage, and the balance, $800, was paid in cash. The wife gave to the husband this $800, and he had the property conveyed to himself, thereby assuming the existing mortgage of $1,200; and he gave a $300 purchase-money mortgage, due in one year. Both the husband and wife testified that the property was bought for the wife, and that she was led to believe that the title was in her name. She can neither read nor write, and is dense. They moved into the house, and she continued to take boarders; and her testimony and that of her husband is that she gave to him, from moneys other than those that he gave her from his wages, $300, with which he paid off the $300 purchase-money mortgage. Each of them was an owner of 10 shares of stock in a building association in Jersey City. The original $1,200 mortgagee desiring his money, the husband pledged his stock with the building association; and he and his wife gave a mortgage to the building association for $1,400, and took this money and paid off the mortgage. Whether the whole of it was taken for this purpose—that is to say, whether there was interest accumulated on the mortgage to the extent of $200—does not appear. The husband went on paying off the shares in the building association, and when they were paid off the mortgage was canceled. The wife testifies that she repaid $1,000 to the husband on account of this money. Her testimony concerning this is very indefinite. She was under the impression, she said, that this mortgage was $1,000, and she testified that the mortgagee wanted the money, and her husband raised it and paid it off, and she paid it back to the husband in installments; hut, upon inquiry as to the method and manner and fact of this repayment, her answers were very unsatisfactory, and I am not inclined to believe that she did repay this money. The wife always collected and kept the rents from this property when the same was rented; that is to say, when they themselves were not living in it. She and her husband each testify that she always paid the taxes, or, rather, that she gave him the money to pay the taxes. It appears that he did not pay the taxes, and that the property was advertised to be sold under the Martin act, and that she borrowed $700 on her shares from the building association, and paid the taxes with this money. When her building association shares matured she took the balance, $1,300, and expended it upon repairs upon this property, and, I understand, also upon the property next hereafter to be mentioned. This other property was acquired in 1887. The testimony is that the purchase price was $2,200. The fact is that $400 was paid in cash, and $1,800 was represented by an existing mortgage. This $400, the defendants say, was made up of $160 that the wife had received from an insurance company upon a policy held upon the life of her aunt, $100 was money that the wife borrowed from some stranger, and $140 was her savings out of moneys from boarders and rent, over and above the weekly money given her by her husband to pay household expenses. The testimony of the defendants is that the wife paid all the repairs and all the taxes that were ever paid upon these properties. Some time in September or October, 1903, the defendants were desirous of borrowing $1,600 upon the property 101 Stuyvesant street, which was, as we have seen, now clear of all incumbrance. The wife testifies that she wanted some little money, but this is discredited by the fact that she did not get any, and that the husband testified that he took all the money to...