HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0672 and id is 1 raw text is: MASTER V. FULLER
MASTER against FULLER. Lincoln's Inn Hall, 71h July [1792]. Lords Commissioners
Eyre, Ashhurst, and Wilson.
[Vide S. C. 1 Ves. jun. 513.]-A married woman having separate property agrees with
the landlord [without her husband's knowledge] to pay an additional rent, for her
husband's house, in consequence of having it better fitted up: she dies, and the
husband files a bill for the return of the money, and to have the agreement delivered
up as fraudulent on him: bill dismissed.
A bill filed by the plaintiff Master, as executor of his late wife Martha Master, praying
an account of monies paid by her to the defendant, and to have an agreement entered
into by her to pay the defendant an additional rent, delivered up.
The bill stated, that the defendant let the plaintiff a house, at the rent of £20, under
a lease, bearing date 29th November 1771, and that the plaintiff had discovered that
soon after, Martha (who was entitled to the rents and profits of a real estate, as her own
separate property) had entered into a private agreement to pay the defendant a further
rent of £18 in consideration of the house being differently fitted up, and had paid such
additional rent till her death. This agreement with the wife, the bill charged to be a
fraud on Martha Master, and obtained by improper means, that the house was not
extraordinarily fitted up, and was not worth more than £20 a-year.
The defendant in his answer denied any imposition upon the plaintiff's wife, and
stated that the agreement was drawn up by her own solicitor, and that the house was
fitted up by her own direction, and according to her own fancy, and that the original
and additional rents made but a moderate rent for the house.
It was in evidence that the defendant had put up the house to sale, and had, upon
that occasion, represented it as a house let for £20 a-year.
Mr. Mansfield for the plaintiff.
[20] The merits of the case lie in a small compass, and go upon a familiar principle.
The object of the bill is to recover the money paid by the wife under this agreement,
which was a fraud upon the plaintiff, who thought he had a house at £20 a-year, and
did not know that any more was to be paid for it, much less that there was a further
rent to be paid out of his wife's fortune. It is no answer, that that payment was
nothing to him, as she might give away her property. That argument is false, as the
husband is hurt by it. The wife having separate property, it is true she may bind it:
but all such agreements with respect to it are a fraud upon the husband, because he has
a just expectation of a benefit from that property. Here it was a fraud, as the agree-
ment related to a subject for which the husband was to pay; and it drew the husband
into an agreement, which he would not have entered into if he had known of this
underhand agreement with the wife. Clearly this agreement is injurious to the husband.
but, if it was not so, as relating to the separate property of the wife, being a fraud, Mrs.
Master would have a right to be relieved against it, if she were alive; and the husband
has the same right, as her representative. It stands on the same principle as an agree-
ment or bond to return part of a portion on marriage. There, though there is no issue,
and the husband sues who gave the security, he is relieved, because the bond is founded
in fraud. Redman v. Redman, 1 Vern. 348; Gale v. Lindo, S. B. 475, where the
persons who sought relief gave, or were privy to, the securities. Neville v. Wilkinson
(ante, vol. i. p. 543), is another case, where the party was prevented from having the
benefit of an agreement, because fraudulent as to other persons. As where a debtor
gives up his property to his creditors, and one creditor takes a security for a larger
sum, the Court will relieve, because it is a fraud on the other creditors. There, though
in fact no injury is done, it is set aside, because fraudulent as to third persons. So
here the agreement was a fraud upon the husband; and those who stand in the wife's
place have a right to be relieved by having it repaid. And it is proved the house was
not worth more than £20 a-year, and the agreement with the wife was kept a secret
from the husband.
But the Lords Commissioners, without hearing counsel for the defendant, dismissed
the bill. (Reg. Lib. 1791, Bfol. 304 b.)
757
4 BRO. C. C. 20.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0672&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)