Valintine v. Richardt

• Decision Date: 14 April 1891
• Citation: 27 N.E. 255,126 N.Y. 272
• Parties: VALINTINE v. RICHARDT et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

126 N.Y. 272

27 N.E. 255

VALINTINE

v.RICHARDT et al.^*

Court of Appeals of New York.

April 14, 1891.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, second department.

For former reports, see 26 N. E. Rep. 973, 12 N. Y. Supp. 196,13 N. Y. Supp. 417.

Wn. C. Beecher, for appellant.

Horace Secor, Jr., for respondents.

O'BRIEN, J.

The plaintiff is the infant son and sole heir at law of Catharine A. Valintine, deceased, and by his guardian ad litem brought this action to recover certain real estate which was conveyed by his mother in her life-time to the defendant Richardt. The litigation took the form of an action to set aside a deed given by the plaintiff's mother to said Richardt on the 7th of June, 1886, of the house in which she then resided, in the city of Brooklyn, on the ground that the conveyance was without consideration, and was procured from the grantor by fraud and undue influence. This charge presented a question of fact, which was tried by the court with the aid of a jury, and the findings are all in favor of the plaintiff. It is expressly found that the conveyance was without any consideration, and that it was procured by fraud and undue influence on the part of the grantee. These findings are conclusive upon us, as they are not without evidence to sustain them. It further appears from the findings that on the 27th of October, 1886, the defendant Richardt conveyed the property to one Susan A. Austin in consideration of $12,000, which was paid, and about a year thereafter she mortgaged the same to Elizabeth H. Lunt to secure the payment of $9,000, which was advanced on the faith of the mortgage The subsequent grantee and mortgagee above named were made parties to the action. The court found as to them that they took their conveyances, respectively, in good faith and for a valuable consideration, and that the action could not be maintained against them, and, so far as concerned them, dismissed the complaint. The court directed a money judgment against the defendant Richardt for the sum of $20,063.22, that being the value of the property at the time of the conveyance to him, with the interest thereon from that date, with annual rests, he being a trustee ex maleficio. The only question of law involved in the case is whether this judgment could properly have been rendered against him upon the findings and pleadings in the case. The relief demanded in the complaint was that the conveyance by plaintiff's mother to Richardt, and by him to Mrs. Austin, and the mortgage by her to Mrs. Lunt, be declared void and canceled, and ‘for such further or different judgment or relief as may be just.’

The findings below are to the effect that the defendant Richardt, having procured the conveyance from the plaintiff's mother by fraud and undue influence, and without consideration, conveyed the property to bona fide purchasers, who are entitled to hold the same as against the plaintiff, though he is not. The plaintiff could obtain no relief in the action except as heir of his deceased mother, from whom the conveyance was obtained. He could not proceed in affirmance of her deed, and recover damages on account of the fraud, as such an action could be maintained...