Williams v. Betts

Citations

• 11 Del. Ch. 128
• 98 A. 371
• 1916 Del. Ch. LEXIS 25

Syllabus

<p>Rev. Code 1915, § 4216, passed in 1907, Act Gen. Assem. March 14, 1907, (24 Del. Laws, c. 243), declaring it lawful for husband or wife to testify for or against each other in both civil or criminal causes, did not remove the bar of the common law, resting on public policy, against testimony of husband or wife as to communications between them based on the marital relation, such as an agreement between husband and wife arising out of their communications for reimbursement for the wife’s expenditures on his behalf, in consideration of which he conveyed property to her.</p> <p>A deed of land from a husband to his wife, stating a money consideration paid by her to him, unless clearly contradicted, was of evidential value to support the wife’s claim to an equitable interest in the property and her contention that the deed was made to compensate her for having previously paid his debts from the proceeds of her own property.</p> <p>At common law, the husband and wife were so nearly one that the husband could not directly convey the legal title to his wife, though equity might uphold such a conveyance after considering the motives, purposes, and good faith of the husband; and, in order to work out an equity, there must be a clear right arising out of matters independent of the deed, as well as some further conveyance or release contemplated, to carry it into effect, as an agreement or obligation, and there can be no presumptions in its favor.</p> <p>The fact that a wife to whom the husband had conveyed land by a deed reciting a money consideration joined with him in mortgaging it, even if it was done for his benefit, did not operate as a waiver or relinquishment of any right or interest she had in the property.</p> <p>Where a husband, conveyed land to his wife for a stated money consideration and they joined in a mortgage of it which was subsequently foreclosed, leaving a surplus, and the wife claimed the surplus during her husband’s life, and the mortgagee, who was ful