Opinion
04-26-1910
RHEINFORT et al. v. ABEL.
James C. Connolly, for complainants. Alexander P. Maxwell, for defendant.
Suit to quiet title by Georgiana Rheinfort and others against Lizzie Abel. On final hearing of bill. Decree for complainants.
See, also, 76 N. J. Eq. 485, 74 Atl. 479.
James C. Connolly, for complainants.
Alexander P. Maxwell, for defendant.
HOWELL, V. C. The bill in this case is filed to quiet the title to a tract of land in Elizabeth, of which Peter Abel died seised on July 26, 1869. Peter Abel left him surviving his widow, Elizabeth, a daughter, Lizzie, and a son, John P. It was not known at that time, and it was not discovered until months afterwards, that he had executed a will. In the month of March, 1870, the daughter, Lizzie, was married to one John G. Bauman. This marriage was subsequently annulled, as hereinafter stated, for the reason that Bauman, at the time of his marriage to Lizzie Abel, was already married to another woman, who was then living. On December 28, 1870, Lizzie, the daughter, was married to her cousin, Peter Schell. On June 4, 1874, the daughter, Lizzie, by the name of Lizzie Abel, not Lizzie Bauman, nor Lizzie Schell,made a conveyance to her mother, the widow of Peter Abel, for the two tracts of land in question. They cover a frontage of 75 feet on South street, Elizabeth, and it is insisted by the defendant that this deed is now an invalid instrument, for the reason that Lizzie Abel's husband, Peter Schell, did not join with her in making the conveyance.
In October, 1874, Lizzie was divorced from Peter Schell in the state of Iowa, and, on February 16, 1876, the marriage between her and Bauman was annulled by the decree of the Court of Chancery. Elizabeth Abel, the widow, having taken title from her daughter by the deed above mentioned, on June 28, 1877, conveyed the premises to Michael Hartig, through whom the complainant claims title. The question of Lizzie Abel's title must have been raised shortly after Hartig took title to the lands, for the reason that in 1883 he brought an action of ejectment against her in the Union county circuit court by the name of Lizzie Bauman, in which action he recovered judgment of possession on September 3, 1883. Lizzie Abel, or Schell, has always, with the exception of a short period, resided in the city of Elizabeth and near the premises in question, and since the conveyance by her to her mother, in 1874, she has not only not been in possession of any portion of the lands in question, but has never by any legal process sought to recover possession thereof or title thereto. The mother may be presumed, perhaps, to have known of the daughter's marriage, and it may also be that, as between them, the deed of 1874 may have been without consideration, as the grantor's counsel urged; but, whatever the fact is as to these questions, it is true that she (the grantor) has known for 30 years that her mother's grantees have been in possession of the premises and have enjoyed the rents, issues, and profits thereof, and she has permitted them to make sales of portions of the land, and to make such small improvements and repairs as were necessary to make the house on the premises inhabitable, and has never in any court set up any title, except by answer filed in this cause. She was made a party to this suit by the name "Lizzie Abel, or Elizabeth Bauman, widow of John G. Bauman, as she is now known," and she was required to answer upon her oath. She filed her answer in the name of "Elizabeth Bauerman," and calls herself a widow, and claims that at the time she made the deed in question she was married to John G. Bauerman, who did not join with her in making the conveyance, and she omits to make any statement whatever about her previous marriage to Peter Schell. She subsequently, by leave of the court, filed a supplemental answer and cross-bill, in which she alleged that her name was Lizzie Schell, that she was the wife of Peter A. Schell, to whom she was married in December, 1870, and that her husband, Schell, did not join with her in the deed made to her mother in 1874, and claiming that for this reason the deed was void.
The complainants claim title by adverse possession and by virtue of the judgment in ejectment. It is true that the complainants are now in peaceable possession of the premises decribed in the bill, and that they and their predecessors in title have been in actual possession thereof since 1877. They have had the kind of possession which gives title. It has been an open and notorious, uninterrupted and continuous, undisputed and peaceable, and under a claim of right and adverse. Cornelius v. Giberson, 25 N. J. Law 1. Such title will support an action of ejectment. Spottiswoode v. Morris & Essex R. R. Co., 61 N. J. Law, 322, 40 Atl. 505. This title by adverse possession is supplemented by the judgment in ejectment, which awarded to Michael Hartig, the predecessor in title of the complainants, the possession of the premises in question. It is true that at the time the suit was brought the defendant's name was not Lizzie Bauman, but Lizzie Schell; but it is likewise true, as appears by the evidence, that she was generally known by the name of Lizzie Bauman, and it was by that name that the process in the ejectment suit was served upon her. She filed a plea in abatement in that action, alleging that at the time of the issue of the writ she was the wife of John G. Bauman, who was still living In Wisconsin, although, as it now appears, her marriage with him had been annulled seven years before. Later, by virtue of a stipulation between the attorneys for plaintiff and defendant, this plea was withdrawn, and judgment entered for the plaintiff".
The defendant's actions all through are incomprehensible. They may be explained, perhaps, on the theory that she was weak-minded, an argument which might receive some support from the fact that she was once confined in a lunatic asylum for a short time; but she seemed on the witness stand to appreciate the situation and to understand the issues which were being heard.
My conclusion, therefore, is that the complainants must succeed on their bill, and that the title to the land in question must be awarded to them.