Case ID: nh_59/html/0015-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Foster, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rundlett v. Ladd.
    A relinquishment of dower by a wife may be a good and valuable consideration for a payment, by her husband to her, of a sum of money equal to the value of her dower right. As against his creditors the validity of such payment, like the validity of his conveyances of property to other persons, depends upon its being free from fraud.
    Writ oe Entry. The land was conveyed, Sept. 14, 1859, by the former owner, to the defendant, who is the wife of Daniel W. Ladd. She paid money for it when she received the deed. She received the money from her husband in the summer of 1859.. Between 1850 and 1858 her husband sold other land, called the Hanson farm, in different parcels, to different persons. When the deeds were made, she refused to sign them unless a part of the money received for the farm was paid to her. Her husband promised to pay»her a certain sum, and she signed the deeds. The money he paid her, in the summer of 1859, was paid in performance-of this promise. At the time he paid her the money, he was indebted to the plaintiff and to other persons. The plaintiff obtained a judgment and execution against him, and levied the execution on the land which had been conveyed to his wife.
    The plaintiff excepted to the refusal of the court to instruct the jury “ that a verbal agreement between the husband and wife, that' he would at some future time pay her for releasing her dower in the Hanson farm, was of no legal validity, and created no valid, debt from the husband to the wife; and that he had no lawful, right to pay any money to her for such release as against any person to whom he owed a debt at the time of said payment.” The question of fraud in the transaction between the defendant and her husband was submitted to the jury, who returned a verdict for the-defendant.
    
      Stickney and Wiggin, for the plaintiff.
    
      Worcester Grafney, Heath, and Frink, for the defendant.
   Foster, J.

The exception cannot be sustained. The dower right in the Hanson farm, which the defendant released, belonged, not to her husband, but to her. It could not be conveyed by him, nor taken by his creditors on execution. Drew v. Munsey, Smith (N. H.) 317, 320; Bassett v. Bassett, 10 N. H. 64; Hollowell v. Simonson, 21 Ind. 398. Its value could be ascertained. Jackson v. Edwards, 7 Paige 386, 408; Doty v. Baker, 11 Hun 222, 225; Bartlett v. Van Zandt, 4 Sandf. Ch. 396. It does not appear that, she received more than the value of it. Her husband’s creditors, being unable to take it for bis debts, were not injured by ber receiving a part of tbe price for wbicb tbe farm was sold, equal to tbe value of wbat sbe released. If sbe bad not signed the deeds, tbe sum sbe received would not bave been paid by tbe purchaser of tbe farm. If tbe farm bad not been sold, and bis creditors bad levied executions on it, bis interest in it would bave been appraised and set off in payment of bis debts, not at tbe value of the farm, but at tbe value of tbe farm subject to ber right of dower, — the value of tbe farm less tbe value of ber dower right. Her relinquishment of ber right might be a good and valuable consideration for bis paying ber its value. As against tbe plaintiff, tbe validity of tbe payment, like tbe validity of bis conveyances of property to other persons, depended upon its being free from fraud. Low v. Carter, 21 N. H. 433; Nims v. Bigelow, 45 N. H. 343; Lavender v. Blakstone, 2 Levinz 146, 137; Motley v. Sawyer, 38 Me. 68, 74; Bullard v. Briggs, 7 Pick. 533, 541; Needham v. Sanger, 17 Pick. 500, 509; Garlick v. Strong, 3 Paige 440; Doty v. Baker, 11 Hun 222; Smart v. Haring, 14 Hun 276; Quarles v. Lacy, 4 Munf. 251; Blanton v. Taylor, Gilmer 209; Taylor v. Moore, 2 Rand. (Va.) 563; Hale v. Plummer, 6 Ind. 121; Hollowell v. Simonson, 21 Ind. 398; Ward v. Crotty, 4 Met. (Ky.) 59; Marshall v. Hutchinson, 5 B. Mon. 298, 307; Woodson v. Pool, 19 Mo. 340; Wright v. Stanard, 2 Brock. 311; 2 Kent Com. 174; 2 Story Eq., s. 1372; Atherly Mar. Set. 162; 1 Bishop Mar. Women, ss. 720, 722-725, 758.

Judgment on the verdict.

Allen, J., did not sit: tbe others concurred.