Rundlett v. Ladd

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Rundlett v. Ladd

59 N.H. 15

DecidedJune 5, 1879

StatusPublished

This text of 59 N.H. 15 (Rundlett v. Ladd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rundlett v. Ladd, 59 N.H. 15 (N.H. 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

Foster, J.

The exception cannot be sustained. The dower right in the Hanson farm, which the defendant released, belonged, not to her husband, but to her. It could not be conveyed by him, nor taken by his creditors on execution. Drew v. Munsey, Smith (N. H.) 317, 320; Bassett v. Bassett, 10 N. H. 64; Hollowell v. Simonson, 21 Ind. 398. Its value could be ascertained. Jackson v. Edwards, 7 Paige 386, 408; Doty v. Baker, 11 Hun 222, 225; Bartlett v. Van Zandt, 4 Sandf. Ch. 396. It does not appear that, she received more than the value of it. Her husband’s creditors, *16 being unable to take it for bis debts, were not injured by ber receiving a part of tbe price for wbicb tbe farm was sold, equal to tbe value of wbat sbe released. If sbe bad not signed the deeds, tbe sum sbe received would not bave been paid by tbe purchaser of tbe farm. If tbe farm bad not been sold, and bis creditors bad levied executions on it, bis interest in it would bave been appraised and set off in payment of bis debts, not at tbe value of the farm, but at tbe value of tbe farm subject to ber right of dower, — the value of tbe farm less tbe value of ber dower right. Her relinquishment of ber right might be a good and valuable consideration for bis paying ber its value. As against tbe plaintiff, tbe validity of tbe payment, like tbe validity of bis conveyances of property to other persons, depended upon its being free from fraud. Low v. Carter, 21 N. H. 433; Nims v. Bigelow, 45 N. H. 343; Lavender v. Blakstone, 2 Levinz 146, 137; Motley v. Sawyer, 38 Me. 68, 74; Bullard v. Briggs, 7 Pick. 533, 541; Needham v. Sanger, 17 Pick. 500, 509; Garlick v. Strong, 3 Paige 440; Doty v. Baker, 11 Hun 222; Smart v. Haring, 14 Hun 276; Quarles v. Lacy, 4 Munf. 251; Blanton v. Taylor, Gilmer 209; Taylor v. Moore, 2 Rand. (Va.) 563; Hale v. Plummer, 6 Ind. 121; Hollowell v. Simonson, 21 Ind. 398; Ward v. Crotty, 4 Met. (Ky.) 59; Marshall v. Hutchinson, 5 B. Mon. 298, 307; Woodson v. Pool, 19 Mo. 340; Wright v. Stanard, 2 Brock. 311; 2 Kent Com. 174; 2 Story Eq., s. 1372; Atherly Mar. Set. 162; 1 Bishop Mar. Women, ss. 720, 722-725, 758.

Judgment on the verdict.

Allen, J., did not sit: tbe others concurred.

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

Foster, J.

The exception cannot be sustained. The dower right in the Hanson farm, which the defendant released, belonged, not to her husband, but to her. It could not be conveyed by him, nor taken by his creditors on execution. Drew v. Munsey, Smith (N. H.) 317, 320; Bassett v. Bassett, 10 N. H. 64; Hollowell v. Simonson, 21 Ind. 398. Its value could be ascertained. Jackson v. Edwards, 7 Paige 386, 408; Doty v. Baker, 11 Hun 222, 225; Bartlett v. Van Zandt, 4 Sandf. Ch. 396. It does not appear that, she received more than the value of it. Her husband’s creditors, *16 being unable to take it for bis debts, were not injured by ber receiving a part of tbe price for wbicb tbe farm was sold, equal to tbe value of wbat sbe released. If sbe bad not signed the deeds, tbe sum sbe received would not bave been paid by tbe purchaser of tbe farm. If tbe farm bad not been sold, and bis creditors bad levied executions on it, bis interest in it would bave been appraised and set off in payment of bis debts, not at tbe value of the farm, but at tbe value of tbe farm subject to ber right of dower, — the value of tbe farm less tbe value of ber dower right. Her relinquishment of ber right might be a good and valuable consideration for bis paying ber its value. As against tbe plaintiff, tbe validity of tbe payment, like tbe validity of bis conveyances of property to other persons, depended upon its being free from fraud. Low v. Carter, 21 N. H. 433; Nims v. Bigelow, 45 N. H. 343; Lavender v. Blakstone, 2 Levinz 146, 137; Motley v. Sawyer, 38 Me. 68, 74; Bullard v. Briggs, 7 Pick. 533, 541; Needham v. Sanger, 17 Pick. 500, 509; Garlick v. Strong, 3 Paige 440; Doty v. Baker, 11 Hun 222; Smart v. Haring, 14 Hun 276; Quarles v. Lacy, 4 Munf. 251; Blanton v. Taylor, Gilmer 209; Taylor v. Moore, 2 Rand. (Va.) 563; Hale v. Plummer, 6 Ind. 121; Hollowell v. Simonson, 21 Ind. 398; Ward v. Crotty, 4 Met. (Ky.) 59; Marshall v. Hutchinson, 5 B. Mon. 298, 307; Woodson v. Pool, 19 Mo. 340; Wright v. Stanard, 2 Brock. 311; 2 Kent Com. 174; 2 Story Eq., s. 1372; Atherly Mar. Set. 162; 1 Bishop Mar. Women, ss. 720, 722-725, 758.

Judgment on the verdict.

Allen, J., did not sit: tbe others concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 N.H. 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rundlett-v-ladd-nh-1879.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack