
    James Tiedemann, Respondent, v. Maria Tiedemann, Defendant, and William Fisher et al., Appellants.
    
      Beal property — title — action by husband to compel reconveyance by wife of property deeded by him to her and to set aside conveyance of said property by wife to third parties.
    
    
      Tiedemann v. Tiedemann, 201 App. Div. 614, affirmed.
    (Submitted April 23, 1923;
    decided May 8, 1923.)
    Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 13, 1922, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. The action was brought by the plaintiff, James Tiedemann, against his wife, the defendant Maria Tiedemann, .and against William Fisher and Ruth C. Fisher, to procure a judgment directing the defendant Maria Tiedemann to reconvey to the plaintiff certain premises situated at Queens, New York, theretofore conveyed by the plaintiff to said defendant, and to have a certain conveyance of said premises, made by the defendant Maria Tiedemann to the defendants Fisher, declared null and void, upon the ground that plaintiff conveyed the premises to his wife to avoid the payment of a possible claim upon her oral promise to reconvey and that she in violation of said agreement had sold the premises to the defendants Fisher without his knowledge or consent.
    
      Henry C. Frey and Elmer J. Ashmead for appellants.
    
      Rawdon W. Kellogg and Charles H. Street for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ. Absent: Cardozo, J.  