Packard v. Putnam

• Decision Date: 22 March 1876
• Citation: 57 N.H. 43
• Parties: Packard v. Putnam.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

57 N.H. 43

Packard v. Putnam.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

March 22, 1876

Chancery---Resulting trust---Written acknowledgment of trust.

By an ante-nuptial contract, it was agreed that the wife, after the marriage was solemnized, should advance to her husband money for the payment of his debts, and should be secured in some way by the husband's real estate, which was of about the same value as the amount to be advanced. The wife having advanced the money, and the husband's debts having been substantially paid, she was desirous of getting her security and it was finally arranged that the land should be conveyed to her by the husband, in the usual form, through the intervention of a trustee, to whom the land was to be conveyed, and who was to convey immediately to her. The land was accordingly conveyed by the husband to the trustee in pursuance of the arrangement. It was, however, before the conveyancing was completed, arranged that the land should be sold on her account, and that the trustee should convey to the purchaser. Held, that a trust resulted in favor of the wife.

While the title remained in the trustee, the wife becoming anxious wrote to him stating how uneasy she was feeling about her property, and that she wanted a deed of the "Enfield property:" to which he answered in substance, referring to her letter and to what she had said about her property telling her not to worry about it, and promising to convey it at her pleasure. Held, that this letter was a sufficient declaration of trust within the statute of frauds.

The letter was written in the presence of the trustee, and signed for him in his presence, and by his direction. Held, that this was a sufficient signing by the trustee.

The letter to which this was an answer was not produced, but, its absence being satisfactorily accounted for, parol evidence was received of its contents.

Parol evidence was also received for the purpose of identifying the land described in the wife's letter to the trustee as her "Enfield property."

The evidence of the plaintiff, who was the wife, was offered in the cause; but the defendant being an administrator, and all the facts contained in her deposition being amply proved by other testimony---Held, that it was not necessary to receive her testimony in order to prevent injustice, under Gen Stats., ch. 209, sec. 17

GRAFTON COUNTY

BILL IN EQUITY, in which Sarah A. Packard, wife of Sylvanus W Packard, complains against said Sylvanus, Amie Putnam, widow of

the late Amos Putnam, Willie Putnam, and David Putnam, minor children and heirs of said Putnam, and David Eaton administrator upon the estate of Putnam, situate in the state of New Hampshire.

The bill stated, in substance, that said Sarah was married to said Sylvanus May 29, 1866; that by an ante-nuptial contract between her and Sylvanus, previous to their marriage, it was agreed that said Sarah should furnish said Sylvanus with money sufficient to pay off all his indebtedness, and that the money thus furnished should be considered as a lien upon said Sylvanus's real estate; and that said Sylvanus should secure said Sarah by conveying to her his real estate, in some way or manner, as they might be advised, by counsel learned in the law, it could be legally and properly done. Among the different ways proposed, for refunding the money thus advanced, was one to sell the place, while said Sylvanus had the title, and with the money obtained from the sale to repay said Sarah for the moneys she might advance; but if this was not done, then said Sarah was to be secured, or paid, for the moneys advanced, by such a conveyance of said Sylvanus's real estate as they might be advised was safe, legal, and proper. That in pursuance of said contract, said Sarah furnished said Sylvanus divers sums of money, amounting to sixteen hundred dollars, or over, for the payment of the debts of said Sylvanus: and said Sylvanus's debts were all paid by the money thus furnished, with the exception of a small debt of ten dollars, for which said Sarah is now responsible. Previous to the marriage, in accordance with the contract, said Sarah furnished said Sylvanus with four hundred dollars, which was paid in discharge of said Sylvanus's debts, and at divers times, since said marriage, has paid divers debts of said Sylvanus, amounting in the whole, as above stated, to sixteen hundred dollars. The sums which said Sarah so furnished were more than the value of his real estate.

In the spring of 1867, in order to raise the money to repay said Sarah, said Sylvanus advertised his real estate in Enfield to be sold at public auction, and put the same up to be sold to the highest bidder; but, as no satisfactory bid for the estate was received, the estate was withdrawn, and not sold.

After this, the real estate was offered at private sale, in order to raise funds to repay the money furnished by said Sarah, but no opportunity offering for its sale, and the said Sarah feeling uneasy in regard to her security, and having then paid out and furnished more money than the real estate of said Sylvanus was worth, requested said Sylvanus to secure her, as he had agreed to, by giving her a deed of his real estate. In pursuance of this request, said Sylvanus, after a consultation with the friends and family of said Sarah, and taking the advice of legal counsel, proposed to convey by a deed of warranty, in the usual form, his real estate in said Enfield to some honest and reliable person, who would either hold the estate in trust, and dispose of the same, and from the moneys obtained from the sale thereof, if sufficient therefor, repay said Sarah for the moneys advanced by her for the payment of

the debts of said Sylvanus, or immediately convey the same to said Sarah. In pursuance of this understanding, the said Sylvanus, Sarah, and one Amos Putnam, a brother-in-law of said Sarah, went to Lewis R. Morris, Esq., with the intention of having a deed, in the usual form, made by said Sylvanus and said Sarah, to said Putnam, of the real estate in said Enfield, and that then the said Putnam should immediately convey the same estate to said Sarah. A conveyance of said real estate was made by said Morris in the usual form, running from said Sylvanus and said Sarah to said Amos Putnam; but, owing to some misapprehension on the part of Mr. Morris, thinking possibly it might look like a fraudulent transaction if the intention of the parties was then and there carried into effect, and expose the parties to possible litigation, he advised said parties that it would be better not to have a conveyance simultaneously made by Putnam to said Sarah, as they wished and had intended, but to have it done at some time thereafter. At this time there were other ways suggested for the security of said Sarah, but it was finally decided that in a short time the original intention should be carried out, and that Putnam should convey the Enfield estate to said Sarah; and such was the understanding of all parties.

In a short time, after the conveyance to Putnam, the said real estate, some time in the fall of 1868, was again offered for sale at auction, for the purpose of paying said Sarah, and said Putnam was then and there present at the auction for the purpose of making the conveyance of said property to any one who might purchase, and was at all times ready to convey to said Sarah; and the only reason it was not done was, that it was the expectation of all parties that the property would soon be sold, and that a deed from Putnam to the purchaser would save the expense of making a deed from Putnam to said Sarah. At the time of the said last mentioned auction said Putnam gave the deed of said Enfield property to said Sarah, saying to her it was hers, and that at any time he would sign a deed transferring to her the title of the Enfield property; and after giving her the deed, which she has ever since had in her possession, said to her,---"It is now all right, and if I should die to-night, Amie [his wife] and the children know that the property is yours, and it will make no difference."

At the time of the conveyance to said Putnam, said Silvanus and said Sarah were living upon the said real estate, and remained in the the open visible possession of said estate until after the death of said Putnam, and the taxes on said place have been paid by said Sarah, and the property is now taxed to her, said Sarah.

Said Putnam died at Thetford, on March 14, 1869, leaving a widow and two minor children, and leaving estate in Vermont, which is now in course of administration; but said estate will not pay the debts due by said Putnam at the time of his death. Said Putnam left no estate in New Hampshire, and none stands in his name except the estate hereinafter mentioned and described in an abstract of a deed from said Sylvanus and wife to said Amos, dated November 20, 1867, the title to which; on account of the conveyances not being completed

on said November 20, 1867, in accordance with the original intention of the parties, accidentally stands in the name of said Amos but in truth and in fact, in justice and equity, belongs to said Sarah. That the complainant, when she signed said deed of November 20, 1867, signed the same as a part execution of conveyances, which were intended, when completed, to vest said estate, described in said deed, in the complainant, and her signature was intended only as a mere form---a means or instrument by which the whole title to the estate would be vested in herself; and the complainant states she is informed that, instead of getting any security upon said estate for the moneys advanced by her to pay the debts of said Sylvanus, she has divested herself of whatever rights she had by marriage thereto, to wit, dower and...