Hart v. Hart

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Hart v. Hart

178 A. 743, 118 N.J. Eq. 336, 1935 N.J. LEXIS 637

DecidedMay 17, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 178 A. 743 (Hart v. Hart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hart v. Hart, 178 A. 743, 118 N.J. Eq. 336, 1935 N.J. LEXIS 637 (N.J. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bodine, J.

A bill seeking to set aside a conveyance was dismissed. There was no error in this.

The owner of a family dwelling, contemplating a second marriage, conveyed the premises to his grown children. The vice-chancellor found there was no fraud, but an adequate consideration for the conveyance and an acceptance by the grantees. The conveyance was made after a family conference by a reputable and careful member of the bar, who first made clear to the grantor the nature of his act. Some of the grantees were grown women, who had worked from childhood devoting their savings to the payment of the interest and dues upon a building and loan mortgage. The conveyance did not deprive their parent of his entire estate. He was neither old or infirm, or incapable, or unwilling to embark upon a new marriage. A ne’er-do-well' son, one of the grantees, claims that he did not know of the conveyance and had no desire to accept the same. Such does not seem to be the fact. There was sufficient proof from which the court could well find that there was an acceptance.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

*337 For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Yan Buskirk Kays, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bodine, J.

A bill seeking to set aside a conveyance was dismissed. There was no error in this.

The owner of a family dwelling, contemplating a second marriage, conveyed the premises to his grown children. The vice-chancellor found there was no fraud, but an adequate consideration for the conveyance and an acceptance by the grantees. The conveyance was made after a family conference by a reputable and careful member of the bar, who first made clear to the grantor the nature of his act. Some of the grantees were grown women, who had worked from childhood devoting their savings to the payment of the interest and dues upon a building and loan mortgage. The conveyance did not deprive their parent of his entire estate. He was neither old or infirm, or incapable, or unwilling to embark upon a new marriage. A ne’er-do-well' son, one of the grantees, claims that he did not know of the conveyance and had no desire to accept the same. Such does not seem to be the fact. There was sufficient proof from which the court could well find that there was an acceptance.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

*337 For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Yan Buskirk Kays, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A. 743, 118 N.J. Eq. 336, 1935 N.J. LEXIS 637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hart-v-hart-nj-1935.