French v. French
3 N.H. 234 (1825)
Rule of Law:
An instrument for the conveyance of land that is invalid under a state statute due to a formal defect, such as an insufficient number of witnesses, may still be given effect as a valid common law conveyance, such as a covenant to stand seised to uses, provided there is a consideration of blood or marriage between the parties.
Facts:
- A father and son were parties to a land transaction.
- The father executed a deed conveying his farm to his son.
- Contemporaneously, the son executed a written instrument intended to grant the father the use and improvement of the same farm for the duration of the father's life.
- This instrument from the son to the father was signed and sealed, but was only attested by one subscribing witness, whereas the relevant statute required two.
- The parties' intent was for the father to be supported in his old age from the farm's use, a common practice for parents settling their affairs.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff (father, referred to as 'demandant') brought a real property action against the defendant (son, referred to as 'tenant') in a New Hampshire court to enforce his claimed life estate in a farm.
- The case was presented to the New Hampshire Supreme Court of Judicature for a final decision on the legal effect of the instrument in question.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a written instrument intended to convey a life estate in land, which is invalid as a statutory deed because it is attested by only one witness instead of the required two, nevertheless operate as a valid conveyance under the common law doctrine of a covenant to stand seised to uses when the transaction is between a father and son?
Opinions:
Majority - Greek, J.
Yes. An instrument that is statutorily defective may still be a valid conveyance as a covenant to stand seised to uses. The court's duty is to construe instruments to give effect to the parties' intent, which here was clearly to secure a life estate for the father. While the instrument fails under the New Hampshire statute of 1791 for lacking a second witness, it can be analyzed under older legal principles. The English law of uses and trusts, including the Statute of Uses (27 Hen. VIII), was received as part of New Hampshire law and was not superseded by the state's conveyancing statutes. Those statutes merely provided a simpler alternative to common law feoffments, not an exclusive mode of conveyance. This instrument can be construed as a 'covenant to stand seised to use,' which requires a consideration of blood or marriage. The father-son relationship supplies the necessary consideration of blood, which need not be explicitly stated in the deed. The covenant raises a use in favor of the father, and the Statute of Uses then 'executes' that use, transferring legal possession to him.
Majority - Richardson, C. J.
Yes. A deed that is invalid under the statute is not wholly inoperative and can be effective under common law principles. The court agrees the deed is invalid under the statute requiring two witnesses but rejects the argument that statutory failure means total failure. The state's conveyancing statute did not abolish common law methods of transfer like feoffments, bargains and sales, or covenants to stand seised to uses; it merely provided a simplified alternative and added a recording requirement for validity against third parties. The statute itself recognizes 'bargains and sales,' which implicitly recognizes the adoption of the English Statute of Uses, upon which such conveyances depend. Since the Statute of Uses is part of New Hampshire law, the instrument between the father and son, supported by the consideration of blood, is a valid covenant to stand seised to the use of the father for life. The Statute of Uses executes this use, giving the father a legal life estate.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for affirming that statutory modes of conveyance are not exclusive and do not abrogate common law alternatives unless explicitly stated. It preserves the flexibility of doctrines like the covenant to stand seised, allowing courts to uphold the clear intent of the parties despite formal defects in an instrument. By confirming that the English Statute of Uses is part of New Hampshire's common law, the court ensured that these equitable and historical forms of conveyance remain viable, preventing hyper-technical statutory applications from defeating legitimate family property arrangements.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: French v. French (1825)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"