The eastern clarion. [volume] (Paulding, Miss.) 1837-1863, 1859-08-10
TSS741
Margaret A. Allen appellant, Miles Adams ct a.

defendants.
Appeal Snd cross appeal from Probate Court Of
NaEoO county.
This cause comes before us on an appeal and cross
appeal from the Court Of Probates the report of
the commissioner of solyency the estate of Hen
~ Alien deceased. Mrs. Allen filed her account
against the estate Of Henry Allen Jr decd, her late
husband for money Of her separate estate received
10y HIM for the use Of negroes his plantation, for
proceeds Of the sale Of cotton. and Tor an amount
paid and advanced by her after Aliens DEATH on exc
rution IN the sheriff hands, which was about TO be
levied on the property of the estate. The commits
sIoner reported her clam amounting in all S67 81
20 the court Tor allowance: exceptions were filed to
the report, and oyerruled 10y the Court and the claim
allowed
Referees were appointed to decide on the validity
Of sad claim, and report their action to the court
who subsequently made their decision and report
which was objected 10. and sand report di~allowed-
Ana thercupun other referees were appointed who
subsequently reported their decision allowing the ac
count of Mrs. Allen except for the hire and use Of her
negroes. Nothing Is sand about the proceeds Of cot
toh charged m the account but we regard this also
rejected the order of the court confirming tins re-
port only mentions the sum Of 5000 90 said to have
been loaned ont 10y the dccedeut and the execution
pad 10y Mrs. Allen after his death. Bills of execution
we're taken and filed by both parties 20 the several
orders and DEGREES Of the court, and the two main
questions for decision first, the appointment
81 referees, and second TO the decree allowing
part Of the account and rejecting the balance.
We think there was no error IN the appointment Of
referees under th" statute. The decision of the re-
terncS has binding effect on the Court il : more
report subject 70 The rejection or confirmation Of the
court ana llI> reference i not therefore 70 be
garded aS IN the nature of appeal hut an utcroc-
utory order directing further examination for the
information of the Court preparatory 10 its final de-
cree. There therefore no error in the reference
The mann point however, for our consideration arr
srs oh ihe allowance and rejection of certain Of the
items of Mrs. Aliens account
The record shows that Mrs. Allen was married in
this STATE % the sad Henry Allen Jr deceased in the
year l>54 That about three thousand dollars M mon
,N' ty separate property OF the wife. was placed ny
the wife IN the hands Of the husband not for his
or as Sli from the wife, bat for her benefit Ihat
the Sud A.lcu IN hIs life time stated that he had loan
ed ALL or the greater part OF SAID sum At interest and
that AZ ms death no note or other security was found
among h.~ papers for said amount. 1t further al-
pears that certain slaves the separate property Of ne
wife were also used from the month 81 May o. 70 i>t
January, 90 by the >IIt Allen amt also Tor the year
lNj5. That the said degedgnt also sold and used GER
tam sums of money, the proceeds OF cotton F'u>'d
10y the negroes of SAID Margaret \ Allen: -,
And lastly, THAI the sud Margaret ~ ater inc leat9
Of the said Henry Allen advanced thn sul" @, ~ ~
90 prevent the sale OF dercdents property unirE l
execution AGAINST his estate in the htptr 81 'lV >'I
~, and about 10 ha i"'ed ON thg ptnItIti W Wv re-
tate, 20 save 70 from sacrifice. These rsi>II'g,y
several items II the account filed ami allowed ~ MN
commissioners. ami which are o'9t't'" l" '''" ~
th, subject of contest here. -.
II Mil hs Observed that the record shows no agree
mont between the husband and wife Ia relation % tc
NJ, ri NOV f,r1p,rty Nothing appears to induce the
pra~uup tIau that u intended that t!ie
should appropriate the property Of .he Wiz e Inc
goods without account. unless the ancient t"i, ga 'il'
common law of England VI ga all the IN', " ~ ~"
reasonable dognas against the nights anu I, NV ~
are estate. are De regarded as >t ~. vi
state since the adoption OF our statutes % 80 III
\ IS s.
fr Mrs Allen these rules were originally i'uhdSulh
reasoning or rather, in assumptions th't nave he'h
lnug SINCE discarded 10y the adNancSm'hl OF Ie 's'
mn nat I> called the learning q ne 17f ''-lila ctt
rtt, estates i'm married women; In the 'hrIsN'n p"i
cy of the Law against their cAuh :. I" : - ~ -
IN tb, Flyt thar Il was against natural llEnt hat u,N
-hould own property M thor own RSht - u u'r |
ease Of Powell " liawkey, T. wins, p :, NHert ~
Nh. s every reasonable amendment was To he made
AGAINST the wife, and her consent TO her huso3nds
rrr,ips III her interests was to he presumed and that
h. ma received and lived upon u a. gItt, and that
il was "againSt common right that the wife should
I,y, 4 Srparttr property from her husband, and
tI,rsf,r, an unreasonable amendments were 10 be
,i,,,trrA AGAINST her Per Lord Macehlfield
chancellor Kont. after thorough review OF all the
class Of eases in England, says the leaning of the
cnurts have been too much against the wife, and the
prp.umnton Of her consent too freely given"
Ncperation for the opinions and reasoning of the
ancient fathers of our Jurisprudence is due alike to
she authority of their great names 10 the learning
research and wisdom which usually marked their la
harS and yet, to clam for their opinions ntthlty or
perfection At ITS inception, would be Sorvlc attery
t. them "a unjust to the noble science they naugli-
aaied