Gould v. Gould

Headnote

Conveyance oflamd, purchased by a husband, from, a third person, to his wife—no trust results in his favor — 1 JR. £>., sec. 53, p. 728.

In an action, brought by the plaintiff to compel the defendant, his wife, to convey to him the title to certain premises which had been conveyed to her by a third party, the consideration money having been paid in advance by the plaintiff, it was stated in the complaint that the premises were conveyed to the defendant, with the consent of the plaintiff; and that at that time and subsequently his wife made an oral promise to convey the premises to him whenever he should request it.

Held, that the deed vested in the wife the fee simple to the land, although her husband paid the grantor the consideration money, and that no resulting trust arose out of the transaction in his favor.

That, as it was not asserted by the plaintiff that his wife violated any trust in procuring the deed, or in any manner deceived or defrauded him in the transaction, no case was made within the exception of section 53 of 1 Revised Statutes, page 728.

That the promise of the wife to reconvey the premises to her husband was not binding on her either at law or in equity, and that any attempt to enforce the promise by judicial decree would be in defiance of the provisions of the statute of frauds.

Appeal from a judgment, entered on the decision of the Monroe Special Term, in the office of the clerk of that county on the 14th day of December, 1886, dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint upon the merits.

The respondent is the wife of the appellant and their marriage took place prior to the transactions involved in this action. The object of the suit is to compel the respondent to convey to the appellant the title to certain premises conveyed to her by a third party, the consideration money being paid in advance by the appellant. It is stated in the complaint that the premises were conveyed to the defendant, with the consent of the plaintiff, who bases his demand for relief upon the fact asserted by him that at that time, and subsequently, his wife made an oral promise to convey the premises to him whenever he should request it. All the evidence' as to what the transaction in fact was, and the circumstances connected with it, is in the plaintiff’s own evidence, who testified, substantially, that at the time the deed was made out and delivered he had a talk with his wife, and the language which he used in giving his testimony is as follows^ viz.: “ I had a little talle before I went up to get the papers made out, in regard to the title ; I said I could have it made out in her name, and, of course, she would convey it to me at any time; she was present; * "x" "x" paid the other forty dollars the day the papers were made out; it was my money. "x' * * Q. What was said by your wife on the subject of conveying the property to you afterwards ? A. She agreed at different times to deed it to me. Q. What was said at the time the deed was made to her ? A. I don’t think there was a word mentioned to anybody in any shape or any manner in the squire’s office at the. time the

deed was made to her; we had a talk before we started to go over there. Q. What talk did you have with your wife before the deed was made about having the property deeded back to you some time ? A. I said you can have the papers drawn to you and you will make it to me any time ; she was satisfied; she said yes; all right.”

The full consideration for the premises was $500. After the conveyance was made to the defendant they were leased and managed by the plaintiff, and he testified that he improved the property by erecting buildings thereon, at the cost of $2,000. In 1881 the parties separated and have not lived together since. Upon this evidence the plaintiff rested, and on the defendant’s motion the plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed, with costs.