15 N.Y.S. 418 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1891
The complaint was in the nature of ejectment, although framed as in equity. Both parties claimed title to a farm in the town of Coeymans, Albany county; Peter W. Ten Eyck being the common source of title. On September 21,1871, Peter W. Ten Eyck conveyed the farm, through an intermediary, John FT. Carroll, to his wife, Elizabeth Ten Eyck. The deeds of conveyance were acknowledged on that day, and delivered, but were not recorded until January, 1883. The deeds expressed a consideration of $100, but none of it was paid. The farm was worth $20,000. Mr. and Mrs. Ten Eyck had two children,—the plaintiff Maria, and the defendant Catherine, wife of Peter A. Witbeck. Mrs. Ten Eyck, at the time of her marriage with Peter W. Ten Eyck, which occurred in 1835, had a son of a former marriage, Cornelius H. Slingerland, then nine years of age, now one of the plaintiffs. Mr. and Mrs. Ten Eyck had lived all their married life upon the farm, Cornelius living with them as a member of their family. He continued to live with them until he was 40 years of age. He was industrious, and after he
There was some testimony given upon the trial by the defendants, witli the view of showing that Peter W. Ten Eyck was of unsound mind; that he was unduly influenced by his wife to execute the deed to her in 1871; that the •deeds to her were never actually delivered; also that the deed from Elizabeth to the plaintiffs was never delivered. We have examined all this evidence, and, although the learned judge submitted the questions of fact thereby suggested to the jury, and the jury thereupon found in favor of the defendants, we are constrained to say that, in pur opinion, the evidence is utterly insufficient in that respect to sustain the verdict. It may be there is a scintilla of evidence in support of the surmise that Peter W. Ten Eyck was of unsound mind, that he was unduly influenced by his wife, that he never delivered the deed to her, and also that Elizabeth never delivered the deed to the plaintiffs, but of evidence substantially tending to establish either of these propositions we find practically none. The verdict, therefore, should be set aside as against the evidence, unless the defendant Catherine was entitled to recover as a matter of law under the recording act. The evidence shows that at the time her father delivered her the deed she had no notice of his prior unrecorded deed to his wife. As the defendant’s deed was first recorded, if she was a purchaser in good faith and for a valuable consideration, her deed must prevail. 1 Kev. St. 756, § 1. As an original proposition, we should gravely •doubt whether the payment of $10 would suffice to defeat the title of the prior grantee of a farm worth $20,000, although coupled with the implied promise of the later grantee to pay the net proceeds of the farm for a time, as appointed by the grantor. This doubt is strongly supported by two North Carolina cases, cited by the plaintiffs: Fullenwider v. Roberts, 4 Dev. & B. 278; Worthy v. Caddell, 76 N. C. 82, and the English cases therein cited. These cases are to the effect that a fair price is requisite, not necessarily a full one. But in Hendy v. Smith, 2 N. Y. Supp. 535, a case in which the consideration was only one dollar, the court, reviewing several cases in this state, sustained .the deed first recorded, and held that the question was not one of the adequacy