Throckmorton v. Chapman

• Decision Date: 18 January 1895
• Citation: 32 A. 930,65 Conn. 441
• Parties: THROCKMORTON v. CHAPMAN et ux.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

32 A. 930

65 Conn. 441

THROCKMORTON

v. CHAPMAN et ux.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Jan. 18, 1895.

Appeal from superior court, Fairfield county; Shum way, Judge.

Action by John I. Throckmorton against George D. Chapman and wife to foreclose a judgment lien on several pieces of land. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The first piece sought to be charged with the judgment lien is the homestead of Mrs. Chapman. Several years prior to 1875 the land was owned by one Mrs. Susan Sturges, an aunt of George D. Chapman. Mr. Chapman, about 1869, acting for Mrs. Sturges, and with her money, erected a new house and barn, and made other improvements upon this property, which improvements were not fully paid for. In 1872, English & Holt, a firm of builders, foreclosed a lien on the aforesaid premises, for materials furnished in the erection of the buildings thereon erected as aforesaid, and the title to said property became absolute in said English & Holt in April, 1873. In 1876, English & Holt, in a letter of that date to Mrs. Chapman, threatened to eject her and Mrs. Sturges from the aforesaid premises, which they had continued to occupy since said foreclosure proceedings, unless the rent were promptly paid; but offered to sell the property to her. The outcome of that letter was an agreement on the part of English & Holt to sell the property to Mrs. Chapman for $5,000, and on May 8, 1877, they deeded the property to her. By deed dated May 10, 1877, the premises were mortgaged to the Bridgeport Savings Bank, which deed was executed by Mrs. Chapman. In its execution she was joined by her husband, George D. Chapman, and it was given to secure a note for $5,000, signed by Mrs. Chapman, and in the signing of the note she was joined by her husband. On May 18, 1877, Mrs. Chapman and her husband received from said savings bank $4,943.75, which amount their attorney, with money of his own to make the sum of $5,000, paid to English & Holt as purchase money for said premises. The balance so advanced by the attorney was repaid to him by Mrs. Chapman. The interest on the note to the bank was paid by Mrs. Chapman.

Goodwin Stoddard and John L. Morehouse, for appellant.

Daniel Davenport and Wm. B. Glover, for appellees.

ANDREWS, C. J. This was an action praying to foreclose a judgment lien on nine pieces of land situated in the town of Fairfield. The complaint alleged the obtaining by the plaintiff of a judgment against George D. Chapman; that a judgment lien was duly placed on these pieces of land; that the record title to each and all of them was in Lucia I. Chapman, wife of said George D.; that they were married in 1802; that all said pieces of land had been purchased with the money, or upon the credit, of the said George D.; and that the title had been taken in the name of the said Lucia I., for the purpose of defrauding the plaintiff and others who were creditors of the said George D. Chapman. The plaintiff made numerous requests to the court for rulings, all of which were denied. The finding of the material facts is set forth in the statement of the case. The court found the issues for the defendants and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff appealed.

The only real controversy in the case in the trial court was whether or not George D. Chapman had any interest in the parcels of land described, or in any of them, which could be taken for his debts. Most of the claims made by the plaintiff are disposed of by the finding of facts. Only three or four were pressed in this court. As to all the pieces of land mentioned in the complaint, other than the first one, called the "homestead," the finding is explicit that they were purchased with funds in which Mr. Chapman had no interest. As to the homestead, the plaintiff asked the court to hold and rule: "That the money loaned by the bank to Mr. and Mrs. Chapman, and used by them in the purchase of the homestead, was the money of the husband; and that the wife, in signing the note, incurred no personal responsibility or liability of any kind; and that the bank, as to her, could only look to the land which was mortgaged to secure the note. That, if she incurred a personal responsibility, she could by no means have acquired more than an equal interest in the money with her husband, and that to the extent of his interest in said money, contributed to the purchase of said homestead property, it is to that extent available to this plaintiff in satisfaction of his claims. That the fact the mere legal title never vested in the husband could make no difference in this case, as the taking of a conveyance to a wife by a husband who had paid the consideration therefor is...