Case ID: nj-eq_88/html/0612-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William H. Warren, appellant, v. Cora B. Warren, respondent.
    [Decided January 31st, 1918.]
    On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Stevenson, who filed the following opinion:
    In the above-stated cause my conclusion is that the complainant has failed to establish his case, and that the bill must therefore be dismissed.
    The equitable principles applicable to the situation presented by the pleadings and proofs are well settled — so well settled that there was no dispute in regard to them in the argument of counsel.
    As to the facts, I think T may say that the evidence not only failed to rebut the presumption of a settlement or gift, but convinced my mind that there was a gift — that this was the common case where a man buys land and has it conveyed to his wife with the natural expectation that the settlement will be advantageous to both parties. When the relations of the man and his wife cease to be harmonious, when divorce or separation comes, the man finds himself disappointed in his expectations, and he very much regrets the disposition of property which he theretofore made. No doubt there axe situations of this kind where there is hardship, and some future laws may provide for the readjustment of family settlements in case of divorce. Under our present system of laws the destruction of harmonious and confidential relations between the man and wife, their complete estrangement, and even divorce, create no new equity in favor of the husband with respect to land which he originalN donated to his wife when both parties contemplated that their affectionate and confidential relations would endure throughout their lives, and that botli would therefore share in the benefits of the donated property.
    I am disposing of this case without considering the origin of the money which paid for the land, or some other questions of fact. I am assuming for the purposes of this decision that the full price of the land came from money which belonged to the husband alone, together with the rents which the land yielded through a course of years. •
    
      Messrs. Ziegener & Lane, for the appellant.
    
      Messrs. Lum, Tamblyn & Colyer, for the respondent.
   Pee Curiam.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Yice-Chancellor Stevenson.

For affirmance — Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner — 13.

For reversal — None.