57 N.H. 374 | N.H. | 1876
Lead Opinion
FROM HILLSBOROUGH CIRCUIT COURT. This case, according to the report of the referee, involves almost every kind of actual fraud for which courts of equity are accustomed to afford relief.
It appears that relations of trust and confidence existed between the plaintiff and the defendants; that she was ignorant of her rights and liabilities, and sought information from them, and that they undertook, as confidential advisers, to furnish the information; that they wilfully and intentionally misrepresented to her the facts as to her husband's indebtedness, and the law as to her liability for those debts; that she was surprised into giving the conveyance by the fact of her own wages having been attached on claims pretended or real against her husband, which attachments appear to have been under the control of the defendants, and very probably brought about by them; and that she was induced by all these fraudulent misrepresentations and concealments to execute this conveyance, which, otherwise, she would not have done. Story's Eq. Jur., secs. 218, 251.
It seems, therefore, a perfectly clear case for the interference of a court of equity, and I think the relief prayed for should be granted, and a reconveyance by these defendants should be decreed.
Concurrence Opinion
The report of the referee shows a clear case of fraud or the part of the defendants, from which the plaintiff is entitled to relief. There being no written declaration of trust, the plaintiff's deed, in the absence of fraud, would have conveyed an absolute title to the defendants, from which a court of equity could not relieve. Gen. Stats., ch. 121, sec. 13. But the defendants' fraud makes void the plaintiff's deed, and the deed being void, of course on title vested in the defendants. The deed should be decreed void, and, in order to remove the cloud on the title, the defendants should be decreed to reconvey to the plaintiff. Parol evidence is inadmissible to show a trust, but is always admissible to show fraud; and it was introduced in this case to show fraud and not a trust.
The plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for.
LADD, J. concurred.
A reconveyance decreed. *377
