Piper v. Hoard

• Decision Date: 11 October 1887
• Citation: 13 N.E. 626,107 N.Y. 73
• Parties: PIPER v. HOARD.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

107 N.Y. 73

13 N.E. 626

PIPER

v.HOARD.¹

Court of Appeals of New York.

October 11, 1887.

Appeal from general term, supreme court, Fourth department.

The material allegations of the complaint are as follows:

‘Plaintiff states * * * that one Andrew Piper * * * left by his will * * * all of his property to his two sons, James and Frederick, then living, subject to certain charges, and also subject, as stated in the will of said Andrew, to the following limitation; that is, that in case of the death of his son Frederick Piper without lawful issue, the part and portion of the estate, real and personal, hereinbefore devised and bequeathed to him, shall belong to, and is hereby devised over to, his son James Piper and his heirs, subject to all the charges and conditions expressed in said will. Plaintiff further states * * * that said James and Frederick took possession of said property; that said property consisted mainly of a farm of about one hundred and forty-four acres in the town of Frankfort, in said Herkimer county; that they continued to own said farm until the twenty-sixth of March, 1859, when said Frederick conveyed his interest in said farm to the defendant herein, John L. Hoard. * * *

‘Said plaintiff further states * * * that said Hoard had, prior to the year 1859, married a niece of said Frederick; that the defendant had for some years lived in the same house with said Frederick; that said Frederick died in the year 1875. Said plaintiff further states * * * that said Hoard, after having procured from said Frederick a conveyance of his interest in said land, and while holding said land, came in the month of April, 1859, to Utica, aforesaid, and saw one Catharine Hagel; that said defendant, with the purpose of bringing about a marriage between her and said Frederick, and procuring an heir to said Frederick, asked and persuaded her (the said Catharine Hagel) to go to Frankfort, said Hoard paying the money for her expenses, to see said Frederick, with a design to bring about said marriage. Said plaintiff further states * * * that said defendant, before said marriage, strove to induce and persuade said Catharine to marry said Frederick, and while so striving to bring about said marriage, and referring to the land hereinbefore referred to, or an undivided part of the same, falsely and fraudulently stated and represented, in substance, to said Catharine, that he (said Frederick) had a fine property so left to him that, if he married and had an heir, the land would go to the heir. Said plaintiff further avers * * * that, after defendant saw said Catharine, she, on the eleventh day of said April, went to Frankfort, and defendant introduced her to said Frederick, and said Catharine was urged by the said Hoard to marry said Frederick, and said Hoard, referring to the land hereinbefore referred to, or an undivided part of the same, stated, in substance, that Frederick had a fine property so left to him that, if he married and had an heir, it would go to the heir; that said Catharine did marry said Frederick on the evening of the day she so met and was introduced to him by defendant, being the said eleventh day of April, 1859. Said plaintiff further states * * * that said Frederick and said Catharine thereafter lived together as husband and wife for more than one year, and that on the sixth of February, 1860, said Catharine gave birth to a child, who is the plaintiff in this action, and is the only child and sole heir of said Frederick. Said plaintiff further avers * * * that the marriage between said Frederick and said Catharine was entered into on the part of the said Catharine on account of the statements and representations above stated, made by said defendant to said Catharine prior to said marriage.

‘Said plaintiff further states * * * that the said land so devised, as hereinbefore stated, by said Andrew Piper to James and Frederick Piper, was, in or about the month of September, 1859, partitioned between James Piper and defendant by an interchange of deeds conveying the respective parts. * * * Said plaintiff further states * * * that defendant, since the conveyance to him and the partition hereinbefore referred to, has occupied said lands, and still does occupy the same, claiming to be the owner of the same.’

The demand for judgment is that the deed from Frederick Piper to defendant, and the deed from James Piper and wife, be set aside and vacated, or the latter declared a deed to Frederick Piper or plaintiff; that plaintiff be declared the owner of the land described in the deed given by James Piper and wife to defendant, and she be placed in possession of same. Defendant demurred to the complaint, on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

RUGER, C. J., and ANDREWS J., dissenting.

C. D. Adams, for appellant.

A. M. Beardsley, for respondent.

PECKHAM J.

This case comes here upon a demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint as not stating facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The special term overruled the demurrer, and granted defendant leave to answer upon payment of costs. This privilege the defendant refused to avail himself of, and final judgment was duly entered against him. He appealed therefrom to the general term, where the judgment was affirmed, with costs, and leave was again granted him to answer on payment of costs, and again the privilege was refused, when, final judgment of affirmance being entered, the defendant appealed to this court.

The complaint develops a curious state of facts. Its material averments are as follows: The plaintiff resides in the city of Utica, and the defendant in Herkimer county. In 1842, one Andrew Piper died a resident of that county, leaving a will which was duly proved, and by which he left all his property, including the farm in question, to his two sons, James and Frederick, and subject to the limitation, in the case of Frederick, that if he should die without issue, the portion of the estate devised to him should belong, and was thereby devised, to the brother James and his heirs. James and Frederick took possession of the farm, (which consisted of 140 acres in Herkimer county,) and continued to own it together until March 26, 1859, when Frederick conveyed his interest therin to defendant, who had, prior to 1859, married a niece of Frederick. In 1875, Frederick died. After defendant had procured a deed of his interest from Frederick in the farm above mentioned, the defendant went to Utica to see one Catharine Hagel, for the purpose of bringing about a marriage between her and Frederick, and thus procuring an heir to him, and defendant persuaded Catharine to go and see Frederick; defendant paying the expenses of the trip. In order to persuade Catharine to marry Frederick, and in the course of his efforts in that direction, and referring to the interest of Frederick in the farm, the defendant falsely and fraudulently represented to her that Frederick had a fine property so left to him that, if he married and had an heir, the land would go to the heir. That, induced by such statements and representations made to her by the defendant, Catharine did marry Frederick on the eleventh day of April, 1859; the result of which marriage was the birth of the plaintiff within a year thereafter, and she is the only child of such marriage. In September, 1859, the farm was duly partitioned between James Piper and the defendant, as the grantee of Frederick, by an interchange of deeds conveying the respective parts, and the defendant since such conveyance has occupied the part set off to him as the owner thereof; and still occupies and claims to own it.

The relief prayed for was that plaintiff be declared the owner of the portion of the farm set off by partition to the defendant, and that plaintiff be placed in possession of the same. The judgments appealed from grant such relief, and defendant asks for their reversal, while admitting the facts above stated. There was no opinion written by the learned judges at the special or general term, and we have not the benefit of their views upon this question.

The defendant, while confessing that he procured the fee of the farm (through this marriage) owned by the plaintiff's father by means of his own fraudulent representations, yet claims that the plaintiff has no right of action against him on that account, because there is a lack of privity between him and the plaintiff, or that plaintiff was not induced to any action by reason of his fraud, and sustained no legal damage therefrom, and cannot, therefore, recover any from him, but must sit by and permit the land once owned by her father to be enjoyed by defendant, although procured by him by means of this fraud.

If to assume jurisdiction and grant relief in such a case would be to run counter to well-settled rules of equity, that fact would be a sufficient answer to the plaintiff's prayer for judgment herein. But if the most that can be said is that the case is novel, and is not brought plainly within the limits of some adjudged case, we think such fact not enough to call for a reversal of this judgment. The spectacle of an individual enjoying property acquired by means of an admitted fraud is not one which appeals with any great force to the sympathies of a court in a civilized land in behalf of the perpetrator of the fraud. Such fraud is not in the least mitigated in its character by the statement that it consisted of fraudulent representations made to a woman to induce her to consent to a marriage in which the mercenary motive was the strong, if not the only, one. The fact that she was ready and desirous of bettering her condition, even though it was by a mercenary marriage, does not alter the other fact that the defendant enjoys property which he has acquired by the successful perpetration of a fraud, and which, if the fraudulent representations by which he acquired it had been true, the plaintiff herein would be...