Ten Eyck v. Whitbeck

• Decision Date: 07 June 1898
• Parties: TEN EYCK et al. v. WHITBECK et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

156 N.Y. 341

50 N.E. 963

TEN EYCK et al.

v.WHITBECK et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 7, 1898.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, Third department.

Action by Maria Ten Eyck and Cornelius H. Slingerland against Catharine A. Whitbeck and others. From a judgment of the general term (35 N. Y. Supp. 1013) affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Reversed.

The subject of this action was a farm in the town of Coeymans, containing about 240 acres of land, to which the plaintiffs claim title by virtue of a deed from Peter W. Ten Eyck to John N. Carroll, a deed from John N. Carroll to Elizabeth Ten Eyck, and a deed from Elizabeth Ten Eyck to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in their complaint allege the making of these several deeds; that Catharine A. Whitbeck claims to be the owner of the premises under a subsequent deed executed and delivered to her by Peter W. Ten Eyck; that such deed is invalid, and conveyed no title to the premises,-and demand, as relief, that the deed to Catharine, and the record thereof, be declared a cloud upon the plaintiffs' title, and be canceled of record. The plaintiffs also demand that they be adjudged to be the lawful owners of the premises, and that the defendants surrender to them the possession, with damages for withholding the same. The answer admitted the ownership of Peter W. Ten Eyck; alleged that he continued to be the owner until July 7, 1877, and that there is a deed on record purporting to be executed by Peter W. Ten Eyck to John N. Carroll; but denied that such deed was intentionally, voluntarily, or legally signed, executed, or acknowledged by the former, and alleged that his signature thereto was obtained by fraud, deception, and undue influence, that the deed was without consideration and void, and that the deeds from Carroll to Elizabeth Ten Eyck, and from her to the plaintiffs were also void. It then alleged a conspiracy between the plaintiff Slingerland and others to procure the deed by fraud and undue influence; that Slingerland was the agent of Peter in his business matters and had great control and influence over him; that on July 7, 1877, Peter W. Ten Eyck executed a deed to the defendant Catharine A. Whitbeck, who has ever since been in the possession of the premises; and that she is the lawful owner under and by virtue of such deed. The defendants demand judgment that the alleged deeds from Peter W. Ten Eyck to Carroll, from Carroll to Elizabeth Ten Eyck, and from Elizabeth Ten Eyck to the plaintiffs, be set aside and declared void, and that Catharine A. Whitbeck be adjudged the owner of the premises. The reply served by the plaintiffs denied the allegations of undue influence and fraud on the part of Slingerland; alleged that, at the time of the execution and delivery of the deed to Catharine A. Whitbeck, Peter W. Ten Eyck was weak and infirm, and that Catharine, conspiring with her husband and others, procured a conveyance of the premises without consideration, by fraud and undue influence.

The action was commenced September 24, 1883. It was first tried before Mr. Justice Peckham and a jury in October, 1886, when a verdict was rendered in favor of the defendants, and judgment was entered thereon. Subsequently an application was made by the plaintiffs for a new trial, upon the theory that the action was an ejectment, and an order awarding a new trial was granted upon the payment of costs. The case was a second time tried before Mr. Justice Mayham and a jury in January, 1889, and a verdict was again rendered for the defendants, and judgment was entered. The plaintiffs appealed from that judgment, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, and both were affirmed by the general term. 15 N. Y. Supp. 418. The order of affirmance, however, stated that but for the recording acts the judgment would have been reversed. An appeal was thereupon taken to the court of appeals, where the order of the general term was reversed solely upon the question of the effect of the recording acts, and the case was remitted to the general term for a review upon the facts. 31 N. E. 994. The appeal was then again heard by the general term, the judgment was reversed, and a new trial granted, upon the ground that, as the evidence then stood, while the question of the delivery of the deeds might have been submitted to the jury it was error to submit to it the questions of fraud, undue influence, or the competency of Peter W. Ten Eyck to execute the deed under which the plaintiffs claimed title. The case was a third time tried, and at the close of the evidence the court directed a verdict for the plaintiffs. The defendants asked the court to submit to the jury the question of fraud or undue influence, the question whether the deed under which the plaintiffs claimed title was delivered and accepted, and whether the defendant Whitbeck's title under the deed from Peter W. Ten Eyck was valid. These requests were denied, and the defendants excepted.

There is no controversy as to the title of Peter W. Ten Eyck. Both parties claim and admit that on September 1, 1870, he was the owner of the premises, and both parties claim title under him. The plaintiffs base their title upon a deed from Peter W. Ten Eyck to John N. Carroll dated September 1, 1870, acknowledged September 20, 1871, and recorded January 30, 1883; a deed between the same parties dated September 20, 1871, acknowledged on September 20, 1871, before William C. McHarg; a deed from John N. Carroll to Elizabeth Ten Eyck dated September 1, 1870, acknowledged September 21, 1871, before the same officer; and a deed from Elizabeth Ten Eyck to the plaintiffs dated January 9, 1883, acknowledged January 29, 1883, before William C. McHarg, which was recorded February 2, 1883. In each of the three deeds first mentioned a consideration of $100 was named, but not in fact paid. The consideration expressed in the last deed was $1, services rendered for the grantor, and moneys laid out and expended by the grantees at the request and for the benefit of the grantor. The defendant Catharine A. Whitbeck claims title by virtue of a deed from Peter W. Ten Eyck dated July 7, 1877, acknowledged the same day, and recorded December 5, 1879. That deed contains the following provision: ‘In consideration of the sum of ten dollars to me duly paid, and also in consideration of the party of the second part paying over to party of first part annually the proceeds of the property hereinafter described, after deducting all of the expenses for working and carrying on the same, together with the taxes, during said party of the first part's natural life, and also in consideration of party of second part paying over to Elizabeth Ten Eyck, wife of party of first part, if she be living at the time of the death of party of first part, one-third of the proceeds of said hereinafter described property annually, after deducting all expenses of carrying on the same during her natural life, and also one-third of the proceeds of said property, after deducting all expenses, to Maria Ten Eyck, daughter of said party of the first part, during said Elizabeth's lifetime, commencing at the death of party of the first part, and at said Elizabeth's death one-half of the proceeds of said property, after deducting all expenses, shall be paid to the said Maria Ten Eyck. But if said party of second part sells said described property, which she hereby has a right to do, after said Elizabeth's death, then the said Maria shall have the use of one-half of the proceeds of said money during her natural life; said property and money to be controlled and managed by said party of the first part.’ After the death of Elizabeth Ten Eyck, the defendant Catharine A. Whitbeck went into the possession of the premises, and her tenants have occupied them up to the time of the trial of this action. Peter W. Ten Eyck died April 10, 1883, and was at the time of his death 89 years of age. His wife died in April, 1885, at the age of 80 years. They were married in 1835. At the time of their marriage Mrs. Ten Eyck was a widow, having one child by a previous husband,-the plaintiff Cornelius H. Slingerland. Mr. Ten Eyck had two children,-the defendant Catharine A. Whitbeck, and the plaintiff Maria Ten Eyck. The evidence tends to show that Maria was sui juris, but of weak mind. The plaintiff Slingerland resided upon the farm with his stepfather and mother for many years, and always resided near them. He acted for them in the management of their affairs, transacted much of their business, and to a considerable extent controlled them and their business matters. Neither of the deeds from Peter W. Van Eyck to Carroll, nor the deed from Carroll...