Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-09-28
DECISIONS OF rHE sUPaFmE CoUHT
Opinions Of the Supreme COurt OF ths
State OF Tennessee, at Jackson, April
Term. 1oso


Opinions OF the Supreme COnrt OF the
state OF Tennessee, at Jackson, April
Terms 1898. 1 y .as4
WIN. Moore, W. Samuel c. simmons. ct al
This case turns upon the construction Of deed
Of gift made by Simpson Shaw, to has children, in
1872
Accomplishment is Judgment creditor IF Samuel
G., who is son Of Sally Simmons, one Of the
daughters of Simpson shaw This bill is fled to
reach supposed iEteres. OF salt Samuel c under
ssid deed OF gift The question Is whether by
proper eonsirue len Of it. he Sas any interest which
can be subjected to his debts by his creditors The
Chancellor thought not, and the case is brought up
BY complainant to reverse his decree
The property, consisting Of land, q nulabsr Of
slaves, and other personal property, IS eonysyedby
the deed TO Solomon Shaw, aad John NJ. Frierson
trustees to pay all his debts. portion CT it for
his wife for life, and at Der death to be sold and the
proceeds together with the balance Of the property
present., TO be divided, ''in equal shares bttEeen
ixlbeth FfiersOn, solomon H. Shaw, Sally Saa-
mons. Clara Brown, and Caiy Grodey's children;
that portion that may belong to Sally Simmons, aud
the children Of Emily Shaw and Csty Grodey, (the
Two last being dead. leaving ehidceB to be hsld by
said trustees IN trust for the only proper use. bene
6t aud behoof Of the said Sally Simmons and her
ehildrsa the said children CT Cay Grodey and Emil
ly ShaR, not TO be subject the control OF debIs Of
any other person, either their husband, or other
wise; the sane being intended TO be held il trust
by said trustees for the and benefit OF the said
last-usmed children Of the said Simpson Shaw, ana
their hsirs"
10 lhs hrst clause, the gift Of the use is 70 his
daughter, Sally Simmons, and in the last it is 10
her and hsr AsiFs" Bath these clauses give to her
the sole and entire right But in the same. section
where he arises TO protect the properly frOm the
husband and settle it 10 her separate use, he en-
ploys the BOIds, ito the aud benefit Of the said
sally Simmons and her CHILDREN Upon this clause
tae argument is based that the three children she
then lad, Of whom the said Samuel c., complain
ants debtor, is the Oldest vested with equal
interest with the mother, ss joint We think
this construction though plausible. cannot be main
tanned. Taking the whole instrument together, and
in view Of the consideration by which ii was prompt
ed, we entertain no doubt bat that the intention
was to give the entire estate 10 the daughter TO her
separate use. by which she Weud be enabled 10
support herself aud children 90 family.
Ii that we're mel So but Oini Interest was vested
il the children the object intended could be defeated
by any creditor of the children, isnSw attempted
Ii be intended TO give the property to the latter
would he not have protected it ia these, as he did
that of their mother, against eTedirors Surely,
rhs sRms reason existed for dOiHtR 90 Another
absurd consequence subEersiTe Of the apparent ia
tenton, would result from the construction Al any
interest passed into tie children, it must be pre-
sent one, aud such might be demanded by = guar
diau, or by any child GA coming Of age, or narFy
ing with an amount, perhaps, and thus de!est the
prominent object Of keeping ali together, Tor The
support Of the family, as 8 unit.
Again; Why not the children coupled with |
the mother, in the first and last ca~sss, where the
estate Is measured, aud given, if they Were intend
ed 10 have any title to the Donation The tIHs in
teutOn aud Pslpsble construction il. that the pro-
peTty WAS given to the daughter alone, protected
from the control Of her husband. aOd all oihers, 10
enable her u support herself aud children, as IL sn-
bers Of hev family
This advantage, the children would, perhaps,
have right under The deed, 10 enforce, If with
held. long as they might constitute pant Of the
family.
The children. then, have ~ rights, by virtue OF
the deed, or which be reached BY their credit
Ors. aud the hill was properly dismissed. The de-
cree will be affirmed. CAsUTHERs
Test; NJ L. WEIGH, C. j. M.