[DOWNLOAD] "Maude S. Ibey v. Everett F. Ibey & a" by Supreme Court of New Hampshire ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Maude S. Ibey v. Everett F. Ibey & a
- Author : Supreme Court of New Hampshire
- Release Date : January 28, 1945
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 58 KB
Description
The ruling that the gifts were not perfected and therefore ineffective was erroneous. The three bonds purchased and made payable on death to certain individuals were contracts with the United States for the benefit of third parties and as such entirely valid. Harvey v. Rackliffe, 141 Me. 169; Reynolds v. Chase, 87 N.H. 227, 230. The gifts were made through contracts duly executed, and there was no requirement that delivery be made to the donees personally in order to complete their rights in accordance with the terms of the contracts. Whether these bonds were acquired with funds used fraudulently and so impressed with a constructive trust is a separate question. For many years it has been law in this jurisdiction that a husband cannot give away his personal property for the purpose or with the fraudulent intent of depriving his wife of her statutory rights in his estate at his decease. Walker v. Walker, 66 N.H. 390; Cook v. Lee, 72 N.H. 569; Evans v. Evans , 78 N.H. 352. This does not mean that he cannot give generously of his property to the natural objects of his bounty and to charity. It simply means that his donations should be made in good faith and not for the purpose of defeating the statute concerning the widow's share in his estate. Just as future creditors are protected by statute from conveyances made with actual intent to defraud, similarly it is held by judicial reasoning that wives should be protected with respect to their distributive shares in the estates of their deceased husbands. Nor is it meant that the gifts of the husband are subject to any standard of reasonableness apart from the matter of fraudulent intent. In so far as Evans v. Evans, supra, applied such a separate test, it is overruled. There is no legal obligation on a husband to act reasonably to preserve or to build up his estate for the benefit of the expectant interest of his wife. Moreover, ""fraud is never to be presumed, and must be clearly established by proof.... It will not be implied from doubtful circumstances which only awaken suspicion."" Jones v. Emery, 40 N.H. 348, 350.