Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

6 N.J. Eq. 515

Smith v. Smith

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided December 15, 1847

New Jersey Court of Chancery · decided 1847-12-15

On the 21st of October, 1845, Sarah Smith, of Trenton, widow of Owen Smith, deceased, exhibited her bill, stating, that her said late husband, previous to his marriage with her, was seized of three houses and lots in Trenton, and one other tract of land, of about fifty six acres, in the township of Hamilton, in the county of Mercer.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“On the day of the marriage between the complainant and her late husband, and just before the marriage, he, without the knowledge of the intended wife, for the consideration of one dollar, conveyed certain real estate to trustees, in trust for his own use during his life, and, after his death, in trust to receive the rents and pay them to his daughter Mary, a daughter by a former wife, during her life, and, after her death, in trust for his three sons.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Wildeman v. Wildeman

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1847-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 1955

8 state decisions

20184718501860187018801890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

The Chancellor.

¶1On the day of the marriage between the complainant and her late husband, and just before the marriage, he, without the knowledge of the intended wife, for the consideration of one dollar, conveyed certain real estate to trustees, in trust for his own use during his life, and after his death, in crust to receive the rents and pay them to his daughter Mary, a daughter 'by a former wife, during her life, and after her death in trust for his three sons»

¶2I cannot doubt, on the evidence in the case, that the object of the conveyance was to defeat the 'complainant of the right she *522would acquire in his estate by the marriage. The other ground or reason now set up for the making of the conveyance, namely, the providing for his imbecile daughter after his death, was not, it appears to me, the real motive.

¶3I am of opinion that a voluntary conveyance by a main, on the eve of marriage, unknown to the intended wife and made for the purpose of defeating the interest which she would acquire in his estate by the marriage, is fraudulent as against her. I see no sound distinction between this case and the like conveyance by a woman under like circumstances.

¶4Decree for complainant.

/6/njeq/515 · .json · Public domain