Young v. Young

• Citation: 16 A. 921,45 N.J.E. 27
• Parties: YOUNG et al. v. YOUNG et al.
• Decision Date: 26 February 1889
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

16 A. 921

45 N.J.E. 27

YOUNG et al.

v. YOUNG et al.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

February 26, 1889.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

The bill was filed on April 28, 1886, and is exhibited by Huldah B. Young, who is the widow, and Dorothea, wife of Benjamin McCord, who is the heir at law, of Jacob Young, deceased, against William and Peter Young, who are the brothers of Jacob Young. It represents that the complainant Huldah was married to Jacob Young on the 30th day of January, 1849, and that at that time Henry Young, the father of Jacob, was the owner of several tracts and farms of land in Harmony township, in Warren county, and, among them, one of 110 acres, which is in the bill described. And it then alleges the following facts: Upon the marriage of Jacob and Huldah they took up their residence with Henry Young. After they had lived with him a short time, Henry informed Jacob that he had purchased the farm described in the bill for him, and that, if he would move on it, and keep it in repair, and improve and cultivate it, and bear the expense of doing so, that he (Henry) would give him the farm when he was done with it. Jacob agreed to this proposition, and, with his wife, moved upon the farm in March, 1849. When Henry put them in possession of the farm, he told Jacob—using the words of the bill—"to take, cultivate, and improve and care for the same as his own, and it should always belong to him; and that he (the said Henry Young) would convey the same to said Jacob Young by deed, or that he would devise the same to him by his last will and testament, to be by him (the said Henry Young) duly executed according to law, so that the said Jacob Young should own the same in fee-simple; that he (the said Jacob Young) should make whatever alterations, improvements, and repairs he desired, in any manner he might wish, but that he must do it at his own cost and expense." Jacob and Huldah remained in possession of the property upon the terms thus determined until the death of Jacob, on April 3, 1876, and during all that possession treated the farm as Jacob's property, cultivated, repaired, and improved it, and held Jacob out to the world as its owner. In May, 1849, Huldah received $1,872.71 from her guardian, which she and her husband, prior to 1858, expended in making permanent improvements on the farm. In addition to this money, Jacob also expended about $2,000 from his earnings, in similar improvements. Among those improvements were the planting of a large apple orchard, the raising and enlargement of the dwelling-house, and the building of the kitchen addition to it, the building of an outside cook-house, a cistern, a tenement-house, a smoke-house, a wagon-house, a large farm barn, on which the words "Jacob Young" were painted, new fences, and other similar structures. Henry Young lived upon premises adjoining the farm, and observed the making of improvements designated, and knew by whom and why they were made, and how they were paid for. While the complainants were in New York, on the night of April 2 and 3, 1876, Jacob Young was assassinated at the dwelling upon the farm by some unknown person. No conveyance of the farm had been made to him, but prior to his death his father had made a will by which he devised that property to Jacob, and by which, at the same time, he devised to each of his other sons, the defendants William and Peter, another farm. About the day on which Jacob died, the defendants William and Peter Young procured their father to revoke the devise to Jacob, give a pecuniary legacy to Dorothea, and devise all his lands to them, and on the 12th of the same month further procured him to execute another will, by which his entire estate, except a pecuniary legacy to Dorothea, much smaller than that which had been previously provided for her, was given and devised to them. On June 5, 1876, a deed of conveyance, dated on the 3d day of that month, and purporting to have been made by Henry to his sons William and Peter, was recorded in the clerk's office of Warren county. This deed purported to convey to William and Peter, for the nominal consideration of one dollar, all the real estate to which Henry had the legal title, including the farm which Jacob had occupied. The property thus conveyed was worth about §25,000. After the death of Jacob the complainant Huldah remained in possession of the farm in question. In June, 1876, William and Peter commenced an action against Huldah for trespass, but failed to pursue it. In January, 1877, Henry Young died, leaving the will last mentioned in force. This will was subsequently duly admitted to probate. In March, 1877, William and Peter commenced another action for trespass against both the complainants, and also the husband of Dorothea. In defense to this suit, title in the complainant Dorothea was pleaded. In the same month William and Peter also brought an action of ejectment against the complainants, to recover the possession of the farm, in which suit the same defense was interposed. At the trial of the ejectment suit, in September, 1877, the facts above stated were proved in defense of that suit, but because William and Peter Young offered evidence to show an interruption in the possession by Henry within 20 years, judgment was entered in their favor, and thereupon the complainants submitted to judgment for nominal damages against them in the action for trespass. The complainants were thereafter turned out of possession of the farm, and William and Peter were put in possession of it, and they now continue in that possession.

The expenditures of Jacob and Huldah upon the farm were made in reliance upon the promises of Henry, above set forth. The bill claims that the complainants Huldah, as widow, and Dorothea, as heir at law, are entitled to a decree against the defendants which shall declare that the defendants hold the legal title of the farm in trust for the complainants, and which shall direct them to specifically perform the contract between Henry and Jacob, and also to account for the rents, issues, and profits of the farm during the time they have held it in their possession; and that, if such decree shall be impracticable, then the complainants are entitled to a decree by which the moneys which were of Huldah, that were expended on the farm, shall be ascertained, and, with interest, charged upon the farm. To this bill the defendants interpose a demurrer, assigning as the causes therefor the following: (1) That the bill is multifarious and inconsistent, in that it unites a claim for the payment of money to Huldah Young, in which Dorothea has no interest, with a joint claim by both the complainants for a conveyance of the farm, such claims being antagonistic and conflicting; (2) that the bill shows no right in the complainant Huldah Young to recover the money she claims from the defendants; (3) that both the money claim of Huldah, and the joint claim of Dorothea and Huldah to the land, are barred by the statute of limitations; (4) that the bill is multifarious in that the claims of Huldah and Dorothea to the real estate are inconsistent and antagonistic, the one claiming as heir at law and the other claiming the right of dower; (5) that the bill shows that Jacob Young was never seised of an estate in which Huldah could have dower; (6) that Jacob Young did not die seised of the farm, so that Dorothea could inherit it; (7) that Huldah Young has no right to ask for the enforcement of the contract between Henry and Jacob against the defendants; (8) that Dorothea McCord cannot ask the enforcement of that contract; (9) that no legal and binding contract was made between Henry and Jacob Young; (10) that Henry Young disposed of the farm to others in his life, and had a right to do so; (11) that it appears that all questions of title to the farm were settled by the judgments in the actions of ejectment and trespass referred to; (12) that the alleged contract between Henry and Jacob was not made in writing, as it should have been to be binding; (13) that the husband of Dorothea McCord should have been made a party to the bill.

Mr. Schenck and Barker Gummere, for complainants. J. G. Shipman, for demurrants.

MCGILL, Ch., (after stating the facts as above.) To present in more logical sequence the causes of demurrer, I will consider them somewhat out of the order in which they are stated in the pleading. The ninth and twelfth causes, which question whether there was a contract to transfer the title of the farm to Jacob, and whether, to insure its enforcement, it should have been in writing, lie at the foundation of the entire case, and should be first disposed of. The bill states that Henry proposed to his son Jacob that, if he would move upon the farm, keep it in repair, and improve and cultivate it at his own expense, he would give it to Jacob when he (Henry) should be done with it. Jacob accepted the proposition. Henry then put him in possession, and stated the terms of the contract more definitely. They were that the son should cultivate, improve, and care for the farm as his own, and it should always be his, and the father would convey or devise it to him in fee. The subject-matter of the contract—the farm—was certain. The consideration was valuable. It was to be Jacob's performance of his promise to live upon, repair, cultivate, and improve the farm, at his own expense. The terms were clear. For the consideration agreed upon the farm was to become the property of the son when the father was done with it, and that was to be when the father pleased, during his life or at his death. It was to be transferred by conveyance, if the father pleased, in his life-time, or by his will if he retained the title until his death.

We are not without precedents of similar contracts, in all important particulars, which have been upheld in this state. In France v. France, 8 N. J. Eq. 650, a father agreed with his son that if the son should live upon a lot of woodland...