Case ID: nj-eq_49/html/0346-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles A. De Arnaud and Susan S. De Arnaud, appellants, v. Mary A. Peet, respondent.
    A person occupying a confidential relation to another in respect to certain lands, procured a conveyance of such lands to himself by deception and for an inadequate consideration, and then conveyed them, through a third person, to his wife. — Held that, under the circumstances, the wife’s claim to be a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration was negatived.
    On appeal from a decree advised by Vice-Chancellor Pitney, whose opinion is reported in Peet v. De Arnaud, 2 Dick. Ch. Rep. 502.
    
    
      Mr. John W. Griggs and Mr. J. R. Coleman, for the appellants.
    
      Mr. Addison Ely and Mr. W. H. Ely (of New York), for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

Our consideration of the pleadings and proofs in this cause has convinced us that the appellant, Charles A. De Arnaud, while occupying a confidential relation to respondent in respect to the lands in controversy, procured a conveyance of those lands from her to him by misrepresentation and concealment of facts, and for an inadequate consideration, and that the circumstances under which the title was transferred to the defendant, Susan S. De Arnaud, negative her claim to be a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration. '

For these reasons the decree of the court of chancery is affirmed

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Depue, Dixon, Garrison, Mague, Reed, Van Syckel, Werts, Bogert, Brown, Clement, Krueger, Smith, Whitaker — 14.

For reversal — None.