Rowley v. Shepardson

• Decision Date: 13 November 1916
• Citation: Rowley v. Shepardson, 99 A. 228, 91 Vt. 8 (Vt. 1916)
• Parties: ROWLEY et ux. v. SHEPARDSON et ux.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

99 A. 228

91 Vt. 8

ROWLEY et ux.

v. SHEPARDSON et ux.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Windham.

Nov. 13, 1916.

Appeal in Chancery, Windham County; Frank L. Fish, Chancellor.

Bill in equity by Edson E. Rowley and wife against George W. Shepardson and wife. From the decree plaintiffs except and appeal. Decree affirmed, and cause remanded.

Argued before MUNSON, C. J., and WATSON, HASELTON, POWERS, and TAYLOR, JJ.

Charles S. Chase and William R. Daley, both of Brattleboro, for appellants. Barber & Barber, of Brattleboro, and Addison E. Cudworth, of South Londonderry, for appellees.

HASELTON, J. This is a bill in equity in which the plaintiffs seek satisfaction of a judgment at law obtained by them against Geo. W. Shepardsou in an action on the case for deceit. The deceit was in the sale to the plaintiffs by George W. Shepardson of a farm known as the Hunting farm, title to which was in Eva C. Shepardson, wife of George W. For the history of the case at law and the principles therein laid down see 83 Vt. 167, 74 Atl. 1002, 138 Am. St. Rep. 1078, and 85 Vt. 226, 81 Atl. 917.

This case has twice before been here; once on demurrer to the bill (87 Vt. 57, 87 Atl. 528), and again on facts found by the chancellor (90 Vt. —, 96 Atl. 374). We refer to the opinions in the cases referred to for all matters preliminary to the questions now before us.

On the sale to the plaintiffs of the Hunting farm, Mr. Shepardson acted as agent for his wife, and notes for the purchase price and a mortgage securing them ran to the wife.

In the opinion written when the case was last here, it was held that, though on common-law grounds she was not liable for the fraud of her husband acting as her agent in the sale of her property not held to her sole and separate use, yet equity would not allow her to profit by the fraud of her agent by holding the avails thereof with notice of the fraud.

Geo. W. Shepardson has no property standing in his name, and as the case was left by our former decision, the questions remaining, unless changed by new evidence, relate to the right of the plaintiffs against the wife, Eva C. This court held that it would be grossly inequitable for the wife to profit by the fraud of her husband acting as her agent in the sale of the farm. For reasons stated in the opinion, the decree was reversed, and the cause remanded. After the remand, the chancellor made further findings for the purpose of making a decree in conformity to the holdings of this court.

The chancellor found that, in the sale of the Hunting farm as agent for his wife, George W. Shepardson defrauded the plaintiffs by means of false representations as to the number of sugar maples that would be left on the farm, and that the damage to the plaintiffs consequent upon such fraud was $1,000; that is, that the difference between the value of the farm as it was when purchased by the plaintiffs and its value if it had been as represented was $1,000. But the chancellor finds that the true value of the farm when sold to the plaintiffs was only $500 less than the price at which it was sold, so that Mrs. Shepardson profited by the fraud to the extent of $500 only. The chancellor finds that Mrs. Shepardson, at the time of the sale, knew of the representations of her husband above referred to, but says that the evidence does not show that she knew them to be untrue. There is a finding that Mrs. Shepardson now holds notes given as a part of the purchase price of the farm, notes secured by mortgage, to the amount of $1,000 and interest thereon since November 20, 1911. Some other findings are made as to matters that cannot affect the result here. Upon the findings the court ordered and decreed that Mrs. Shepardson pay to the plaintiffs the sum of $810, with interest thereon from March 20, 1916, together with the plaintiffs' costs taxed and allowed at $106.92....