Woodruff v. Woodruff
Decision Date | 16 October 1888 |
Citation | 16 A. 4,44 N.J.E. 349 |
Parties | WOODRUFF v. WOODRUFF et al. |
Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
On bill and answer.
Barker Gummere, for complainant. George D. Scudder, for defendant.
MCGILL, Ch. George Woodruff, the complainant's father, died in 1846 seized and possessed of a farm near Trenton, called "Oaklands." During the previous year he made his last will, by which he devised the possession and use of the farm to his wife, Jean Woodruff, for the mutual benefit of herself and the testator's son Patrick Houstoun Woodruff, during the wife's life, and, after her death, to his four sons, Patrick, Robert, Thomas, and Dickinson, in fee, as tenants in common; charging the farm, however, with the payment of one-fifth its value for the benefit of his daughter, Mary. After the death of Jean Woodruff, the provision for Mary was duly made, so that the title to the farm vested in the four brothers in fee, free from incumbrances. Afterwards, in 1851, Robert and Thomas Woodruff conveyed their respective one undivided fourth interests in the farm to their brother Patrick, and in 1856 the complainant, Dickinson Woodruff, also conveyed his one undivided fourth part of the farm to Patrick. The complainant's deed to Patrick is inter partes, and recites that, "in consideration of various sums of money to him in hand paid," he grants, bargains, sells, etc., to Patrick, party of the second part, and his heirs and assigns, all the complainant's right, title, and interest in the farm known as "Oaklands," to have and to hold the same unto Patrick, his heirs and assigns, forever: "provided, nevertheless, and upon the following conditions: That if the said grantor, A. Dickinson Woodruff, shall survive the said grantee, P. Houstoun Woodruff, he, the said grantor, shall have the right, at any time within eighteen months after the death of said grantee, to purchase back again all the right, title, and interest in said farm, 'Oaklands,' hereby conveyed, at a valuation to be then made by two disinterested persons, one of whom shall be selected by the legal representatives of the said grantee, and the other selected by said grantor, and in ease of disagreement the persons so selected may choose a third person." Patrick Woodruff died in December, 1886, leaving a daughter, Louisa C. Woodruff, his only child, him surviving. He died testate, having by his will appointed his daughter Louisa and one Charles P. Stratton the executrix and executor thereof; and having also by it devised to Charles P. Stratton, in fee, the farm "Oaklands," and bequeathed to him other property, upon the following trust: Provision is then made that if the daughter shall die leaving children the principal of the trust fund shall go to them, and that if a child of the daughter shall die during the daughter's life, leaving children, then those children shall take their parent's share. The testator then continues as follows: "And, in case my said daughter should die without leaving any child or children, or the issue of any child or children, then I direct that all the said trust-estate remaining at her decease shall go to my three brothers, Robert I. Woodruff, Thomas M. Woodruff, and Dickinson Woodruff, in equal shares, to their own use forever; and if any of my said brothers should die during my life, or during the life of my daughter, then said trust-estate, that is to say, the share which would have gone to said deceased brother or brothers, if living, shall go to his child or children, if any, in equal parts, and, if there be no child or children, then his share shall go to his surviving brothers or brother, if only one be then living." The trustee, Charles P. Stratton, died during the life of the testator. The brother, Thomas M. Woodruff, also died before the testator, leaving him surviving two children, George and William, who are made defendants in this suit. The complainant tenders himself as ready to comply in all things, upon his part, with the condition or covenant in his deed to his brother Patrick. The defendant Louisa Woodruff refuses to appoint an arbitrator for the purpose of ascertaining the value of the complainant's former interest in the farm. The bill prays (1) that a trustee may be appointed in the place of Charles P. Stratton to execute the trust, and especially as the "legal representative" of Patrick Houstoun Woodruff, to perform, on his part, the terms of the condition or covenant contained in the deed in question, and appoint an arbitrator to agree with an arbitrator to be appointed by the complainant as to the present value of the former interest of the complainant in the farm "Oaklands;" and (2) that the trustee, when appointed, and Louisa Woodruff, may be decreed to convey such interest to the complainant at the valuation of it which shall be ascertained by the arbitrators to be appointed. It is urged for the complainant that his claim to a specific performance of the condition or covenant is entitled to special consideration in this court, because, at law, he cannot recover substantial damages for its breach. The law will not give damages where there is no injury, and there cannot be more than nominal injury, in the eyes of the law, in this case, because he is to give the full value of the interest for its reconveyance to him. He insists the property is of inestimable value to him, as part of his patrimonial estate, about which his affections cling.
It is necessary, first, to determine whether the provision in the deed in question is a condition or covenant. If it be a condition, specific performance of it will not be decreed. A condition differs from a covenant. The legal responsibility of non-fulfillment of a covenant is that the party violating it must respond in damages. The consequence of the non-fulfillment of a condition is a forfeiture of the estate. The grantor may re-enter and possess himself of his former estate. This court, in a proper case, can enforce the specific performance of a covenant, but it cannot enforce the specific performance of that, in a deed, the non-performance of which works a forfeiture of the estate. Woodruff v. Water-Power Co., 10 N. J. Eq. 489,508; Iron Co. v. Erie, 41 Pa. St. 341. Conditions subsequent, especially when relied upon to work a forfeiture, must be created by express terms or clear implication, and are strictly construed. 2 Washb. Real Prop. 447; 4 Kent, Comm. 430; Southard v. Railroad Co., 26 N. J. Law, 13, 20. If it be doubtful whether a clause in a deed be a covenant or a condition, the courts will incline against the latter construction. 4 Kent, Comm. 132. And words in a deed, not, in form, either a covenant or a condition, will be construed as a covenant rather than a condition. The parties to this suit have presented the case upon the assumption that the clause in question, in the deed from the complainant to his brother Patrick, is a covenant. I think they do rightly. While the words "provided nevertheless" and "upon the following conditions" are appropriate words to create a condition, they...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
President and Fellows of Middlebury Coll. v. Cent. Power Corp. of Vt.
...violating the plain intent of the maker thereof, it will be done. 2 Devlin on Deeds (3d Ed.) pars. 970B, 970C; Woodruff v. Woodruff, 44 N. J. Eq. 349, 16 A. 4, 6, 1 L. R. A. 380; De Goosh v. Baldwin & Russ, 85 Vt. 312, 319, 82 A. 182; Palmer's Estate v. Ryan, 63 Vt. 227, 229-230, 22 A. 574.......
-
President And Fellows of Middlebury College v. Central Power Corporation of Vermont
... ... thereof, it will be done. 2 Devlin on Deeds (3rd ed.), pars ... 970B, 970C; Woodruff v. Woodruff , 44 ... N.J.Eq. 349, 16 A. 4, 6, 1 L.R.A. 380; DeGoosh v ... Baldwin & Russ , 85 Vt. 312, 319, 82 A. 182; ... Palmer's Estate ... ...
-
Baker v. Fargo Building And Loan Association, a Corp.
... ... 398, 403; ... Hartung v. Witte, 59 Wis. 285, 18 N.W. 175; ... Stanley v. Colt, 5 Wall. 119, 18 L. ed. 502; ... Woodruff v. Woodruff, 44 N.J.Eq. 349, 16 A. 4, 1 ... L.R.A. 380; Rich v. Atwater, 16 Conn. 409, 419; ... Chapin v. Harris, 8 Allen, 594; MacKenzie v ... ...
-
Easley Coal Co. v. Brush Creek Coal Co.
... ... 276; Rawson v. School District, 7 Allen (Mass.) 125, ... 83 Am.Dec. 670; Graves v. Deterling, 120 N.Y. 447, ... 24 N.E. 655; Woodruff v. Woodruff, 44 N.J.Eq. 349, ... 16 A. 4, 1 L.R.A. 380; Hoyt v. Kimball, 49 N.H. 322; ... Scovill v. McMahon, 62 Conn. 378, 26 A. 479, 21 ... ...