Vreeland v. Vreeland

• Decision Date: 21 May 1895
• Citation: 32 A. 3,53 N.J.E. 387
• Parties: VREELAND v. VREELAND et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

32 A. 3

53 N.J.E. 387

VREELAND

v. VREELAND et al.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

May 21, 1895.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Bill by J. P. Vreeland against J. B. Vreeland and others for specific performance. Decree for complainant John W. Griggs, for complainant.

John S. Barkalow, for answering defendants.

McGILL, Ch. The complainant alleges that in the month of April, 1883, his father, Cornelius D. Vreeland, was seised of a farm in the county of Passaic, upon which he then resided with his wife, Rachel, and his two daughters, Elizabeth and Adelia; that his parents were advanced in age, the father being over 70 and his mother Go years old; that the mother was feeble, and nearly blind, because of cataracts in her eyes; that his sister Adelia was subject to epileptic fits and fainting spells, which affected her mind, and incapacitated her for domestic responsibility, and his sister Elizabeth had married Joseph P. Gould, and had determined to leave her parents, and establish a new home with her husband; that the complainant then resided in the city of Faterson, some five miles from his father's farm, with his wife and only child, Cornelius D. Vreeland, named after the grandfather, where he conducted a horse-feed business; that the father besought him to move to the farm with his wife and child, so that his wife might superintend the household, and he might advise and assist the father, as the father grew older, in the management of the farm; that it was verbally agreed between him and his father that he should move to the farm, and help in its care, and make a home for his father and mother, as long as they might desire to live there; and that in consideration of his doing so his father would give him a deed of the farm, which should convey to him an estate for life, with the remainder in fee to his son in case his son should survive him, and a fee to him at the death of the son if he should survive the son. and should clothe him with power to sell the farm, after the death of his father and mother, the proceeds of such a sale to be so invested that the income would go to him during his life, and the principal to his son after his death if the son should survive him; that in pursuance of the agreement, at personal inconvenience to himself and his wife, and in detriment to his business, on the 18th of May, 1883, after Mrs. Gould had left her parents, with his wife and son, he moved to the farm, and there fully performed the agreement upon his part until the death of his mother, in March, 1887, and the death of his father, on the 6th of July, 1890; and that the father died intestate, leaving him surviving, as his heirs at law, the complainant, a son named J. Beach Vreeland, and the daughters before mentioned, having first prepared and executed a deed to carry out the agreement alleged, but having failed to legally effectuate its delivery to the complainant. Upon the case thus stated he seeks a decree which will secure the specific performance of the agreement referred to.

That equity will specifically enforce such a parol agreement at the instance of a complainant who shall have completely performed it upon his part is now established, In this state, beyond controversy. The remedy is afforded upon the ground that it will work a fraud upon him who, induced by the agreement, has in good faith so performed it as to irretrievably change the situation of the parties to his disadvantage, to permit the other party to refuse fulfillment upon his part. It has had frequent recognition and application in adjudged cases in our courts. Casler v. Thompson, 4 N. J. Eq. 61; France v. France, 8 N. J. Eq. 650; Johnson v. Hubbell, 10 N. J. Eq. 332; Van Dyne v. Vreeland, 11 N. J. Eq. 370, 12 N. J. Eq. 142; Davison v. Davison, 13 N. J. Eq. 246; Cooper v. Carlisle, 17 N. J. Eq. 529; Brewer v. Wilson, Id. 180; Eyre v. Eyre, 19 N. J. Eq. 102; Brown v. Brown, 33 N. J. Eq. 657; Larison v. Polhemus, 36 N. J. Eq. 506; Schutt v. Missionary Soc. 41 N. J. Eq. 115, 3 Atl. 398; Pflugar v. Pultz, 43 N. J. Eq. 440, 11 Atl. 123; Young v. Young, 45 N. J. Eq. 27, 16 Atl. 921; Id., 51 N. J. Eq. 491, 27 Atl. 627; Nibert v. Baghurst, 47 N. J. Eq. 207, 20 Atl. 252; Drake v. Lannlng, 49 N. J. Eq. 432, 24 Atl. 378. But a parol agreement of this character, because of the situation and relations of the parties to it and the consequent opportunity for the perpetration of fraud, is regarded with suspicion, and, when its enforcement is sought, is subjected to close scrutiny. It must not only be mutual, but also definite and certain, both in its terms and as to its subject-matter; and it must be clearly proved. Cooper v. Carlisle, and Brown v. Brown, supra. So, also, it must plainly appear that that which is alleged as part performance is referable to, and was consequent upon, the contract alone, for the purpose of carrying it into effect. Eyre v. Eyre, supra; Pom. Spec. Perf. §§ 108, 109. The proofs establish that the complainant broke up his home in Paterson on the 18th of May, 1893, and went with his wife and son to live with his father, and that the wife undertook the supervision and control of the father's household, and the complainant from time to time assisted in the care and management of the farm, and that they lived together in this way until both the father and mother died. During the same time the complainant continued his home in Paterson, but at such disadvantage, because of his inability to give it his undivided attention, that it gradually lost its value. The complainant testified that he gave up his home in Paterson, went upon the farm to live, and sacrificed his business in the execution of an agreement between him and his father, and also to the terms of that agreement. That he was a competent witness touching those matters in this suit, where the defendants are not sued in a representative capacity, but for property to which they hold title, descended to them from their father, is settled. Hodge v. Coriell, 44 N. J. Law, 456; Palmateer v. Tilton, 40 N. J. Eq. 555, 5 Atl. 105; Crimmins v. Crimmins, 43 N. J. Eq. 86, 10 Atl. 800; Smith v. Smith, 32 N. J. Law, 210, 19 Atl. 255. His testimony is that his father came to him in Paterson, in February, 1883, and told him that Mrs. Gould was about to marry, when she would go away with her husband, and then there would be no one to take care of the house, and proposed that the complainant should go to the farm, and make his home there; and promised that if he would do so he would give him a deed for the farm as soon as he could have it prepared, and also would give him the stock and utensils that were upon the farm. The complainant did not reply to the proposition until May, when he said to his father: "Well, I have talked it over with my family, and if you will give me all the farm, and a deed for it, and the utensils and stock, I will go up there, and make a home for you, and do the best 1 can." He further says: "It was agreed between he and I that the deed— or he asked me if I had any objections—entail to myself, and I said, 'No,' for I did not expect to sell it. He said: 'Well, I would like to have Corny to have it after you are through, and if you don't mind I'll give it to him after you're through with it. I will make a provision so that if anything should occur, and you wish to sell, you would have the right to sell it; but the principal of the money that you receive for it I want to go to your son.'" He further testified that it was agreed that the father was to pay all expenses at the farm, both in its maintenance and in support of the family there. After he went upon the farm, he says that the deed was not forthcoming, as he expected, and he demanded it from his father, and threatened to return to Paterson if he did not get it. Matters continued in this attitude until the fall of 1884, when, he says, his father brought a deed to his store In Paterson, and exhibited it to him, saying: "Here is the deed of the farm which I promised you. It is all right. You can now go on, and do as you like. It is yours." And then he examined the deed, and, handing it back to his father, told him to take it home, and put it away with the father's papers. That deed has been offered in evidence. It is a quitclaim deed from the father to him, dated on the 14th day of June, 1884, purporting, in consideration of one dollar and the natural love and affection which the father bore to him, to remise, release, and forever quitclaim to him the lands described in the bill, with a habendum to him and...