Ogden v. Mchugh

• Decision Date: 07 January 1897
• Citation: 167 Mass. 276,45 N.E. 731
• Parties: OGDEN et al. v. McHUGH et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

167 Mass. 276

45 N.E. 731

OGDEN et al. v. McHUGH et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Bristol.

January 7, 1897

This was a bill in equity, brought originally in the superior court by the heirs at law of Henry Ogden for the recovery of certain real estate alleged to be acquired by the defendant through conveyance from Henry Ogden. In 1868 the defendant Margaret McHugh married James McHugh. Henry Ogden the father of the plaintiffs, who were his children by a deceased wife, knew said Margaret and James, and knew of their said marriage, was present at their marriage, and knew of their living together as husband and wife for short intervals until 1873. In that year (1873) said James deserted said Margaret. He left Fall River, she remaining there. She saw him once in 1875 or 1876, but after that soon lost all knowledge of him; and, believing him to be dead, in 1888 became engaged to marry Henry Ogden, then a widower. She and the said Henry Ogden executed an antenuptial contract whereby Henry agreed to settle property on Margaret. The ceremony of marriage between the said Margaret and the said Henry Ogden was thereafter had on 4th January, 1888, and they thereafter openly lived together as husband and wife in Fall River until the death of said Henry, March 7, 1893. When the antenuptial contract was executed, and when the ceremony of marriage between said Margaret and said Henry Ogden was performed, they both believed that said James McHugh was dead, and they both remained in that belief down to the time of the death of said Henry, though in fact said James was and is now living, and no divorce between said Margaret and said James was ever had. Before the ceremony of marriage between said Margaret and said Henry was had, the question of whether said James was then living was discussed by them and by their friends, and they sought the opinion or advice of a priest about it. Margaret made no fraudulent, nor intentionally made any false, statements to said Henry Ogden nor concealed anything which she knew in respect to whether said James was living or not, to induce him to marry her. Henry knew about said James' desertion of Margaret, and of his disappearance from Fall River, and had, in a general way, a knowledge of all the same facts that she had in respect to his disappearance and supposed death. Henry Ogden owned and was in possession of certain property other than that conveyed to Margaret in accordance with the antenuptial contract at the time the ceremony of marriage between the said Margaret and said Henry was performed, and he gave said other property to his children, all of whom are plaintiffs in this suit. Pursuant to said antenuptial contract the said Henry Ogden caused said estate, which was the estate which was the estate which he then and down to the time of his death occupied, but which he acquired after said January 4 1888, to be conveyed by mesne conveyances, through Christopher Hughes as intermediary merely, to said Margaret. There was no consideration to said Henry for said conveyance other than the desire to...