Opinion
04-30-1887
WILSON and others v. WILSON and others.
E. S. Savage, for complainants. W. Brinkerhoff, for defendants.
Bill to quiet title. On motion to set aside verdict and counter-motion for decree upon the verdict.
E. S. Savage, for complainants.
W. Brinkerhoff, for defendants.
RUNYON, Ch. This is a suit to quiet title brought under the act "to compel the determination of claims to real estate in certain cases, and to quiet the title to the same." Bevision, p. 1189 It is brought by Mary A. Wilson and her husband against Joseph Wilson and his wife to quiet the title of Mary A. Wilson to certain real estate at Iselin, (formerly Uniontown,) in the county of Middlesex, in this state. The bill alleges that the property in question was conveyed to Mary A. Wilson in fee by Jacob Wilson, her father-in-law, in 1883, by deed delivered in July of that year, in consideration of her marriage to his son, whom, at the grantor's request, and in consideration of his agreement to make such conveyance, she married in March of that year; that, after the deed was delivered to her, she redelivered it to her father-in-law for safe-keeping, and it remained in his custody unrecorded at the time of his death, which occurred in May, 1885; that she has had possession of the property ever since her marriage; that her title is disputed by the defendant Joseph Wilson, brother of her grantor, who claims under a deed from her grantor to him made in 1881, which the complainants allege was made without consideration, and merely in trust for the grantor, who was then engaged in a litigation, and who made the conveyance to prevent the property from being subject to any judgment which might be recovered against him therein; and they also allege that, at the time of making that conveyance, the grantee executed and delivered to the grantor a deed reconveying the property, which latter deed was never recorded. The defendants by their answer set up title to the property under the beforementioned deed of 1881 from Jacob Wilson, Sr., to Joseph Wilson, and allege that that deed was made and delivered in good faith for the consideration of $16,000 paid by the grantee to the grantor for the property, and that it was given and taken for the use and benefit of the grantee, and his heirs and assigns, and not in any way in trust for the grantor, or to protect the property from any judgment; and they deny that any reconveyance by the grantee to the grantor was ever made. On motion of the counsel of the complainants an order was made directing that an issue at law be framed in the supreme court (to be tried by a special or struck jury, unless one should not be ready at the term fixed for the trial, in which case it was to be tried by a common jury,) to inquire, ascertain, and determine, in the ordinary way, whether the complainants or the defendants are seized in fee of the premises. An issue was framedaccordingly to determine whether the complainant Mary A. Wilson is the owner in fee-simple of the property. The issue was, as appears by the postea, duly tried at the Middlesex circuit by a struck jury, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the complainant Mary A. Wilson. The justice of the supreme court before whom the issue was tried, certifies that it was duly tried, and that in his opinion the verdict was warranted by the evidence. It is not alleged, and it does not appear, that any error of law was committed at or in the conduct of the trial, and the judge is satisfied with the result.
I have read with great care all the testimony, and find no reason for setting aside the verdict upon any ground. There will be a decree for the complainants in accordance with the finding of the jury.