Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-04-20
OF THE sUPREaE COURr.
OFFICIAL.

4
ceMber TERM 1890.
PrAtsr and vile and oeAsss EOaEsr ana sthsEs.
William Rawlings made his viii and died in 1877
1 BE disposed Of bis whole sstSte in these wcrds
II lend unto my beloved wife, Sally Rawlings AL
/ my estate, real and personal, during her natural
| life or widowhood," and At, her deAsh wa % be
equally divided between all his children The con-
planants are the children, their husbands and des
| eendauts file this bill to recover the land.
The widow died in the year 1854, without having
married again.
In 1912 she sold and conveyed her life estate in
the land TO the HooVens, and gave them possession
with the exception Of . reservation made il u
contract. About the same time cult claim deeds
were executed by most Of the complAnHnts for their
interests IN the remainder fer the consideration per-
haps of $50 each.
The wife Of Prster, and three others, daughters
of the testator, were married women Gt the time
they signed the deeds with their huzbsnda and
were never priVIy examined so ~ to make the
same obligatory upon them.
The bill was fled in April, 1856. and in Oetobsr
of the same year decree was made BY the Chan
cellor settling tie rights Of the parties from which
there was an appeal to this court. when the
was affirmed BY the consent Of the parties, in Jan
usry, ls5S, and the cause remandsd for its exc
cuton.
By this decree it settled that the deeds signed
BY the four fences c0ueTf, were null and void - 70
them, and did not in any way diTest them Of thar
respective shares IN said land. but they
should receive the same out Of the proceeds
of the land in controversy. which was
ordered to be sold FOR partition. No other pArts Of
the need now be noticed except that which re-
Ates to them, as hsyaIo Hppeal from the Last de-
cree. 1870.
By this decree, which was made in April. lSsa.
by the Chancellor, the shares Of these four married
women are withheld from them until the death Of
their husbands respectively, upon the ground that
they all had children born and living, that they
- =. -
interest the purchasers from them were entitled By
virtue of their deeds # 1912. So IL was decssed
that upon the execution OF bonds with good security
by the purchaser that these shares should Re paid
to the said saes Nrt or thei represeL katives, or
heirs st the death Of their husbands the same
should be retained without interest til that time
l. To this part Of theidecree il Is objected that1shs
former decree by which the rights Of the parties
were settled, could only be altered or ehaH1ed BY
rehearing at the same time time, or bin Of review
afterwards in proper time and form. Il i dificu.t
to see how this objection 70 the last decree can De
resisted. 10 Yer. 200. II can only be obViatei By
showing that there Is no conflict. The first decree
gives the property to the wives, and the lat only
pOstpones the time that they ara 70 recsive Il
2. But if the Chancellor had the right 20 make
the decree at the time he did il il right qRes-
ton Of law? Had the husbands any right a. ten-
ants BY the coufte y n 1872, sine which would
pass 70 their vendees un Ter their deeds' The de-
cree assumed that they were tenants By The cour-
entitled to the be Q IL Of this contingent right H
MAS contingent aud uncertain, because ie can only
arise in any case provided the husband survives
the wife.
But man cannot be tenant by the courtesy Of
remainder or reversiOn expectsnt on Al estate OF
freehold unless the particular estate fAl IN during
the Overture. 1Just, (Coke) 2s-l Green Cruise,
1864, Kent. 70.
this case at the time the deeds were nkae By the
husbands for they must be regarded - the ssle
deeds of the husbands they were perfect nzlites
IS to the wives without private exaninstion. the
wives had died before the hrmlnanon % ne me e.
IA the husbsnds courtesy right would have entire
Iy failed Il had existence hes, until 1854. when
Sally Rawlings the tenant Tor life, died But as
thzt time the act Of 1919. Oh So Was IN force and
provided that the husband saonAd eaas sell bis
wfe's real estate during her life without her Join
leg In the conveyance in the maaner prescribed By
law in which married women shall convey lands.s
RI he coaid not then sell it Is % affect her riahfa
without her concurrence in the legal mode, ksw
eould his sale and conveyanee twelve years before
bv relation operate upon her rightsl This woulI
seem 70 be absurd, ys IL Is necessary 70 make one
the case and sustain the decree.
But for another reason they had no coursesy
rights TO pass % their vendees. They eorla 49,.
ne such rights either n ekoass or csusrmase ,,tI
the particular estate ended and having made the,r
deeds before that time, they had no such counee-
ton with the estate a. husbaads "a 10 con.st..ts
them tenants oy the courtesy; or at Least hey
NCAC SS~eRRSN ~ JUL uoex4 70 set clam
whatever to the land againpt their vendee.'
The remainder interest then, Of these married
women was not affected by the deeds Of their hus-
bands, nor can the enjoyment Of THAR rixhts be
postponed by anything that has transsirsd Ths
spirit and intention cfthe act Of 1919 is that wives
shall not be deprived Of the enjoyment Of their READ
estate oy any act oftheir husbands By bis cred
tors even without her solemn aHd free concur
renee IN the single mode prescribed b. law.
The result il, that the decree of tAe Chancellor -
erroneous on this point, and must Be reversed A.
the land has been sold fer partition. ne slaves q
inese teses coUeTt will be plseed in the hands o.
suitable trustee for their benefit or vested N onor
property to be settled On then, ~ the CnaHcsAor
may think best for their benefit
The decree win be 50 modified here, and tns cause
for is execution.
As to the point argued as % Wa Rawlings, i =
.ufseeut To .av that be has not appeared But Il he
mad done So we would have 70 say that II be chose
to reinopish the benefit Of the nrss decree in Ia
favor. he certainly had > right 70 do 80.
CARUraxas
A correct eopys !. ?. cLAzz. Clerk.