Riley v. Allen

• Decision Date: 14 October 1896
• Citation: 35 A. 654,54 N.J.E. 495
• Parties: RILEY v. ALLEN et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

35 A. 654

54 N.J.E. 495

RILEY

v. ALLEN et al.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Oct. 14, 1896.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Bill by Kate M. Riley against Charles F. Allen and others for the rescission of a conveyance. Judgment for complainant.

Howard Carrow, for complainant.

E. S. Fogg, for defendants.

PITNEY, V. C. This is a suit for the rescission of a contract (in the shape of a promise) to make a certain provision for the complainant by will. The contract is alleged to have been made by Joseph K. Riley, since deceased, who is represented here by the defendant Allen, his executor. The real defendants are the ten children of the complainant, and one nephew, who are the beneficiaries under the will of the testator. The nephew, however, is affected remotely, if at all. The allegations of the bill are that at and before April 20, 1885, the complainant, who was then, and still is, the wife of one Edward B. Riley, son of Joseph K., deceased, was seised of two parcels of land situate in or near the borough of Woodstown, Salem county, of the value of about $25,000; that, on the 20th of April, Joseph K. Riley, who was a man of large wealth, entered into an agreement with the complainant to the effect that in consideration that she, with her husband, would convey to him all their right, title, and interest in the lands just mentioned, he (said Joseph K. Riley) would, in and by his last will and testament, at his death, give and bequeath unto the complainant and her said husband the use, interest, and profits of $50,000, namely, $25,000 to each, for and during the terms of their natural lives, and that, in pursuance of that agreement, she, with her husband, conveyed the premises to Mr. Riley; that the title so remained in him, and he had the benefit of the ownership thereof, until he died, which was January 2, 1894, a period of a little less than 9 years; that at his decease the complainant had 10 children (who were all made defendants), the oldest of whom at that time was 18 years of age, and the youngest less than a year. The bill further states that the testator failed to keep his agreement, but by his will gave neither the complainant nor her husband anything, but provided (after some trifling bequests, not worth setting out here) that $0,000 of his estate should go to his grandson Joseph K. Riley, Jr., the son of a deceased son, James R. Riley, and the remainder of his estate, both real and personal, he gave to his executor, in trust for and during the lifetime of complainant's husband to apply the income, in his discretion, to the support, maintenance, and education of the 10 children of the complainant, and to permit the family of his son Edward B. Riley (which includes, of course, the complainant) to occupy such portion of his real estate as they may desire for a home for him and his family, free of rent, upon condition that they keep the premises in good repair, with the privilege of cutting timber for firewood and for repairs and improvements to buildings, with power of sale in the executor, the proceeds of the sale to become part of his estate, and at the death of Edward B. Riley the property to be divided among the children of complainant. The prayer of the bill is that the conveyance from the complainant to the testator may be set aside and decreed to be null and void, and that she may have such further and other relief as the nature of the case may require.

The facts of the case, as they appeared at the hearing, are that Mrs. Sarah Riley, the wife of Joseph K. Riley, deceased, died seised of the lands in question in February, 1874, and by her will gave the use of them to her husband, Joseph K. Riley, during his natural life. She then, after providing for an unmarried daughter, Beulah, by devising to her certain real estate, which is not brought in question here, gave all the remainder of her real estate, which includes the premises here in question, to her son Edward B. Riley. She also gave him a farm of about 40 acres, the title to which was in her husband, so that as to that the devise was futile. Out of her personal property, which she gave to her husband, she requested that $G,000 should be taken by her husband's executors, and put at interest, and the same given to her son James R. Riley during his natural life, and, at his decease without issue, that sum to be divided between her two children Beulah and Edward. It would seem that at this time neither of her sons was married. Afterwards her son James did marry, and died, leaving one son, Joseph K. Riley, who was provided for, as above stated, in his grandfather's will. Edward B. Riley, after marrying, engaged in various pursuits in Woodstown and its neighborhood, without financial success, with the result that debts accumulated against him, and his father came to his relief, and loaned him money, and paid debts for him; so that on the 11th of February, 1884, judgment by confession on bond and warrant was entered in favor of the father against the son in the Salem circuit court for the amount of $7,128, besides costs, and execution was issued on it, and levied on the personal property of the defendant in execution, and also upon the land in question. Joseph K. Riley bad previously set about, as he declared, trying to prevent his son from spending the balance of his property, and tried to induce him to make a conveyance of it to him, Joseph K. This the son at that time declined to do, but as a compromise, on the 8th of February, 1884, conveyed, through a third party, the whole of the premises to his wife, the complainant, for the nominal consideration of one dollar. The father, three days later, procured from his son the judgment above mentioned, and then paid or settled all his outstanding debts. The situation, however, did not satisfy the father, as he had, or affected to have, fear that, through the influence of the son over his wife, the property would still be at his disposal. He therefore brought further influences to bear on the son and his wife to convey the property to him (the father), and that resulted in the conveyance of April 20, 1885, now sought to be set aside. In September, 1885, the father satisfied the judgment of record, and allowed the son to live upon the premises, substantially free of rent, during his lifetime. He was about 60 years of age when he died.

The promises and representations made by the father to the daughter-in-law, which constitute the contract, are proven by several witnesses besides herself and her husband, principally by a Mr. Holmes, a real-estate and insurance agent and conveyancer in Woodstown. Mr. Holmes swears that the father applied to him to use his influence with the son to get a deed to him for the farm, and for that purpose to make certain representations as to what he would do. In fact, this...