Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-03-10

Nancy T. Ciittenden VI. Thomas POsey.
0d the 4th Of July, 1885 Pryor CIittehden sold 10
Thomas Posey two slaves Martha and Evsline, for
S565 so, and made hima bill Of sale in the Ordinary
form These VITA the Chi 4 Of Martha named sam,
are the objects Of this suit. Toe vendor is dead,
and the widow, the complainant, clama the a'aVes
as tensnt in rem8nder under the laws Of Virginia
John Jackson died intesiRte, in VirgiDiA, about
the beginning Of the present century, leaving q
widow, Frances Jackson. and the complainant, bis
only child, who married Prior CIittsuden. They
came to this State, and settled in W lam county
about 1881, or 81, By proceeding in the court Of
NOttsway county, Va, iu 1903, there was assigne
10 the widow, among Others, as her DIVER In the
slaves, a negro woman named Bridget. Those in
controversy her issue. Itseems that CrittsndsR
moEtg4ged the remainder interest Of his wife in
the slaves to WoIshsm, in 1890, By whom they
were bought under q decree for sale there, and afN
terWsrds perhaps in 1885 'S6, redeemed, and the
lie estate Of the YideE pa chased, and the slaves
brought to this State by CrittendsB, and the two
old question, sold to POsey at she time stated,
1888. II appears that the complainant objected 10
the sale al the lime il vas mad insisting upon her
right at the death Of her mother which did not
cur IN ilaiter the fling Of this BILL when amend
ed bill was filed The original was fled in Nov.
1894, the said Prior having died the year before
LILY the law Of Virginia the life estate is forfeit
ed if the slaves are remoVed from the State Without
or sgsipet the consent of those entitled in reVer
! sion. But this case prssehts difficulty on thht
ground, as they were removed BY ihe husband and
his oobsent would be that Of his wife in this respeo
and save the foFfeitu Q. Foster Jordon, s van,
476. So her right whatever It was, would not be
effected by the renewal would the life estate be
fOrfeitI 4, but inure To the husband purehAssr
and at The termination Of that by the deaIh Of the
widow jackson, the compainant's rig1t a ssrt ht4
title in rcversion would accrue, uGless sopelhibg
else has occurred 10 defeat IT,
2 This il is insi-ted is the ease, By the eale Of
the same by the husband. And whether that oaa
be done by the husband 10 bitd the wife is the
neLt question. II certainly eannot hy the laws Of
this ate so ss to exclude her right il she survives
her husband, as was decided in Ihs Of Aan Sui
| liVan Vs Samuel CoPliDger, Hum 543 In thai
case, as in this the husband VIM sullivan, I'D pur-
chased The lie ims estate, and sold the whole to
COElnger But 1t Is commended that the Law CT Yir-
ginIa is different, and that such sale there would
| b nd her rights.
Til bec "a impOr ant question in the case,
because Of the sale under the trust deed there, and
| perhaps the sale TO Pesey here.
This question seems to have been the subject Of
Coz hct ofdeeiaion, at least Of judicial and
! prof, ssiOnsl QIinion, in Virginia. The whole sub
ject is presented in the text and notes. LomaK on
tx. sl2 His conclusion as to the Virginia decis-
ions conforms 10 the Law settled in this State,
sad refers 20 the same Authorizes relied upJn in
Sullivan COpliDger. His conclusion is that DO
assignment by the husband of his Wfs's "revers oa
arg chooses in aetion aDd this is held by ci-
in the note to include reversiOnary interest in
slaves, ''though it be vesied and though the as
| signment be fUr valuable consideration, will de-
feat her right Of urv1EOrhip, il be die in her fe
time and while such interest is reVersiOnAry." If
the life estate mad allen in while the husband lived
his IIgtt 10 reduce The reVersionsry interest 10
would ehure to his assignee, and defeat
the Eife's right by surEiyorship. Bot 4hat is not
this esse The purchase of the life does not
help or STR Dgthen the husbands right to the
tion. The Two estates we're distinct before.
| The husband could net By that or any other mode
obtain power over that while it was reversionary.
In this respect there is no distinction between the
laws Of Virginia and Tennessee.
There is no such affirmative fraud upon the