Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-04-28

Molly and her increase BY vir,ue OF the provisions
Of hlr mothers viii. This answer eontaias. sis,.
ihe following clause: @Nat only law but iusiies
requires that the provisions Of tie viii OF The SAID
Levisa shall be carried cut because dariug her Hfe
she had given to The said D. w. Harris negroes and
other property more 10 value taan VIII be The Ieea-
ces Of respoa dsts proyidet the provision Of said
! will be carried OUT
! IIsrris answers fer himself Snd as guardian Of
bis children insisting that Mrs Saunders took only
eifs estate in Molly and her children, AMI that he
as admisisrster Of his wife, is entitled her utter
Various proceedings we're hsd in this cause dar>
ING which n came twice TO this court, tSee Ward
Va Saunders, > swan ia, and Saecd $50 AID i
vas aeally decided that Molly AMI Increase passed
n,5er Mary II Browns WILL 70 her daughter Levi
80 9.nna rs for life and after her death TO her ehils
drsn. aud they were divided accordingly.
! In the mea1tine, dDTiug the tendency OF hist lit
;o,t;op On The 24th Of June, 1853 the original bill
! ;3 ,be cause now before US was filed. Tie bill is
fled by VIM B., Jno. II and Samuel ~ Saunders,
! al T,1esy Perdue b. Wm 3 Saunders his guar
dian against Baker W. Harris, sets forth TIE viii Or
James Saunders deceased, aud cams mat Lydia
aad her increase passed under its provisions TO Ls-
visa saunders for life, and AFTER her death to her
children It also stses that the negroes herein be-
fore spoken Of as having beea given By Lsviss
I Saunders to B W. Harris ans vie, we're only
leaned aud asks thst they and their inefeasa be a.
| tacbed and upon iIal decree, divided among those
s4yars setting forlh his marriage, the gift of the
descendants OF Lydia te himself and wife, the sale
/ of the nerrO. Alexander, or the I3nd u Sumner
| county, ard the proceedings under wards blu as
herein before detailed aud insisting that Lydia and
| descendants we're the absolute property Of Leyisa
| Saupders and we're net part OF James saunders
| estate The answer, also, claims that Lydia bad
/ hen conveved by Levisc 10 her brother, John H.
| Rrov-n in trust for her. and that she and Der in
] crease had been held in trust accordingly.
D an n-Ta wa
! flo5 for tbe ru~pose of making Nm Saunders,
as administrator OF James Y. Saunders, deceased
nortv complainaut and B. W. Harris, as adminis>
traitor Of Mary Perdue, party defendant. On
the 7th OF Jan, 1851, James y. Perdu', haYlng f!
come of age was permitted 10 become defendant,
instead IF a eompIaiuanf and therefore, be fled
bis answer electing to comply with the conditions
Of the will of Levisa Saunders, ard to take his !
share of the estate BE insists that complainants,
BY their answer to the bill Of Henry Ward. admin
istraor as aforesaid, recognised tae absolute ti.e
Of Mrs Saunders 10 Lydia. and that they should De
held to their admission. he makes his eleetoA he /
saws upon the supposition that Lydia AID descend
ants belonged to his grandmother, for otherwise /
there would be nothing 10 distribute, except me
proceeds Of the land sol aud the perlsnaoIe prop
erty-and, in that contingency, be does not wish TO
compromit his gbt to sue for his share CT the sum
ner county land. ---..-
Upon the hearing the Chancellor dismissed the
bill and the complainants have appealed.
In the view which We have taken Of this case, is
was perhaps unnecessary to Get forth the facts with
the miuuteness Of detail adopted, bat the statement
shows the light in which the parties themselves
viewed the Transaction The court Is called upon TO
pass and tends to strengthen the corecress Of the
conclusion to which We have arrived
The rights o. The parties turn chiefly upon The
validity and effect OF the conveyance Of Lydia and
her children to Jno Fl. Brown on the Sth of March,
1913 On behalf Of the eomplainants il is insisted.
tJ.t the conveyance was q fraud upon the marital
RIGHTS Of the intended husband and therefore Void
that the instrument never delivered to, nor ac>
caped BY John H Brown. and that there is not
sufeient evidence of q trust TO the seperate Of
Tavisa flanders The correctness Of these positions
is denied by the defendants and must be settled By
the court
It is rot every alienation Of the vife's property
during the treaty Of marriage which can be regard
ed as fraudulent only because tie husband vas not
n Marty 10 II. This was conceded by the court in
Jordan rs Black Mcigs, 49, ard Il was stated in
that ease that the mertoricus object Of the con-
variance or the situation Of the intended husband
in point Of peeuniaTy means, would form exceptions
to the general rule Whether there is fraud or not
upon The marital rights, must depend upon the cir
cnnstances of each case. the conveyance Of an VA
married. woman although made Immediately before !
marriage being pTirlI J7eie good. (Engiand rs Do
was Bear 922l In this case the proof bears
little doubt that James Saunders had, previous 10
the marriage represented himself Of wealth,
when in fact he vas without properly nndinsoivent.
II il moreover certain that although Saunders knew
Of the existence Of the conveyance shortly after the
marriage he took step to set aside. nor does he
seem at any time afterwards to have set up claim
10 the negroes except on one or two occasions, when
under the influence Of liquor and with view TO
annoy his wife His creditors made no efforts TO I
subject these negroes to TIE satisfaction Of their
debts and it is in evidence, that be told some Of
them. vhen INTERCEPTED upon the point, that the
negroes were not his but belolged to his wife UuN
Ter these circumstances. We 90 not think, either
mon principle or authority, that there is any pre-
encs for holding the transaction void as fraud /
upon the martial right of the husband Hunt Us. a
Matthews Verm 408; st. George rs. Wake, Myl.
aub X Gl0 :
The proof Of the circumstances under which, and
he object for which. the coGyeyancs to Jn0. H.
Brown was made is found exclusively in the deposit
ions of Cathriue Campbell Of the Gttesiing wit
1es=es and sister Of Lsvisa Saunders, and Of VIM.
R Brown brother Of the said Lsvisa. Mrs Camp {
he'll isa witness examined behalf Of tie com
claimant She proves that The bill Of sale made
1t her suggestion. because. to use her own words, II
qhere was ruror that Maj Saunders was iuclin- fc
u TO he desp3ted and "soely for the reason that g
ne thought in that way we would secure them (the !,
legroes TO my sister Levisa free from the control
# Mai Saunders" The witness further states, that
John H Brown was not present when the bill Of sale
vas executed cud when informed Of the fact which,
me thinks was not until after the marriage. re-
marked 10 her Uthst IL would have been best to have
,een omen and above board anI secured The negroes
% his sister BY marriage contract. ale did not 4
az to me-" adds the witness 'Fhat be disapproved
# the bill of sale that I row remember " She
urtber states that the bill Of sale was kept either
lv Mary II Brown or Bevis7, and was, subsequent y
v at the request Of the latter proved and registered
q before stated Wm r Brown proves thai the v
CONVEYANCE was made for the purpose Of securing o
he pgrnes for his sister Lsvisa, free from Maj .
Saunders debts and that he and John n Brown %
we're consulted, and advised bin to this course. d.
The crcd;hiliiv Of this witness is attacked net By
bringing for ward Witnesses to prove that they would
rot believe him On OATH but by showing By the les
imopv Of others thst some Of the statements Of / -
act made BY bin in his disposition not rslisbe
And Il must &c admitted thatthe testimony adluced
-oeg very far towards establishing the point aimed 81
a. It will be noticed however that he is fully ss-
ainsd bv Mrs Campbell csmplarants own witness, ~
IA his statement Of the object of the transaction. x
The circumstances, moreover. tend to sustain him
IN his recollection that John IT Brown advised, or.
It any rsie knew Of tue deed before the marriage
or il is shown by the certificate Of probate to the
Iced of Levsa to her mother for the go acre tract
IF land as before rested, tbst John II Brown was,
IN the the 9Th of March, 1915 only afew days be-
fore the marriage at Gllatin in the county of SUM
aer This fact is inconsistent with Mrs Campbclrs
recollection, that he not in The county at the
lime of the marriage, and was shocked when he
heard of it-not when be heard Of the execution Of
he bill CT sale to him, inganiousy, but erro
neously argued by the compliments counsel Il
is much more probable, and perfectly consistent =