Simmons v. Havens

• Decision Date: 02 March 1886
• Citation: 101 N.Y. 427,5 N.E. 73
• Parties: SIMMONS v. HAVENS.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

101 N.Y. 427

5 N.E. 73

SIMMONS

v.HAVENS.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Filed March 2, 1886.

D. Morris, for appellant.

Chas. S. Baker, for respondent.

RAPALLO, J.

This is an action of ejectment for certain land claimed by the plaintiff to have been conveyed to her by her mother, Jane Haskell, now deceased, in March, 1865, by a deed which is alleged to have been delivered by Jane Haskell to the plaintiff before her marriage to Simmons, but to have been, after its delivery to the plaintiff, wrongfully taken by Jane Haskell from the possession of the plaintiff and destroyed. The alleged deed was never recorded, and after its alleged destruction Jane Haskell conveyed the same land to Havens, the defendant, who is in possession thereof; but it is claimed that before his purchase he had full notice of the execution of the deed to the plaintiff, and of her rights thereunder. The plaintiff, to maintain the issue on her part, called as a witness her husband, John Simmons, to whom she was married in July, 1865, after the date of the alleged execution of the deed. He testified that before his marriage to the plaintiff she exhibited to him a deed which purported to have been executed to her by her mother, Jane Haskell; that he read it, and it purported to convey the premises in question; that it was dated in March, 1865, and purported to be executed under seal, and to be acknowledged before EDWIN LAMPORT, a justice of the peace; and that there was a subscribing witness to it named Israel H. Arnold.

There was evidence of several other witnesses on the part of the plaintiff to the effect that she had such a deed in her possession, and had exhibited it to them. Her sister gave testimony tending to show that this deed was delivered in her presence by Jane Haskell to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff put it in her bureau drawer, and kept it there until, immediately after plaintiff's marriage, it was taken therefrom by Jane Haskell, and put in the stove and burned, on account of Jane Haskell's displeasure at the marriage of the plaintiff with Simmons. There was also evidence of admissions of Jane Haskell made before her conveyance to Havens, and while she was still in possession, that she had executed the deed to the plaintiff, and had destroyed it for the reason above stated. There was also evidence of a meeting, at about the time when the deed in question is said to have been dated, at a place called the ‘Norcote House,’ at which meeting Jane Haskell, Arnold, and LAMPORT and a Mrs. Van Huysen were present; and that a deed was there made out, which Jane Haskell afterwards stated to Mrs. Van Huysen was a deed of a farm to the plaintiff, which she had executed because the property came from plaintiff's father, who was his only child, and he intended she should have it,-she, Mrs. Haskell, having other children by a former husband; but that if plaintiff should marry Simmons she should never have any of the property, and she, Jane Haskell, would destroy the deed.

Numerous other witness testified to admissions of Havens that the deed in question had been executed by Jane Haskell at his suggestion; that it had been drawn by Arnold, (who was accustomed to conveyancing,) and that it had been acknowledged by Jane Haskell before LAMPORT, a justice of the peace, and that he, the defendant, purchased the same property from Jane Haskell with full knowledge of the execution of the deed in question to the plaintiff, but in disregard of it because it did not amount to anything, having never been recorded, and having been destroyed. The plaintiff and her sister, to whom she had exhibited it, testified to the signature of their mother being in her handwriting, but there was no proof of the handwriting of either Arnold or LAMPORT other than the admissions of the...