The weekly Panola star. [volume] (Panola, Miss.) 1857-1881, 1867-01-12

" wma within fhf Hsfsl.pn NJ iliH
mHitf
llui ihffe tn hels tfnillap n thoW
that ihs asfsaseA faHlIHHet sflff fhis
euhVfBfhft ~ ~ Me 8saef N ihs
pfoIa ~ allederi ~ hsge ben eoas
gfYfyth
The land continued n w. Aaaesasd
~ We pfhTsfly " \ wss lnfre. sad
he pBld ihe iate M ii Nv WVefai
yrar ahef ihe enseg a6F as he
pf1snf w. had #,ssrsaim NJ thu
paee and msnaRfl anh eonlmlled u
ahet TIE Conveyance W UiulWf.
lsGj he bad = sale n ptfsuaI pfop
ffiy M The place, n which eufn,
'lat males and sheep wer wld, III
n whieh he represented ~ lelong ~
hlmaeli, exeept hotse and lmegY
nnd, perhaps, = mnle, vhich he aid
belonged 10 hia son David, and we
aold Ne such. lIe received payment
fof Tho property soId ~ his own, and
represented n 10 lu his property
These laets are attempted 10 bo ex.
plained on the ground that he bad
the management of the place NJ agent
lor his son, who Wis absent llm
thi. 4 an insufficient explanation, eof
II doos net consist with the positive
presentations made by him In the
sale of the personal property IN the
place, more than two years AFTER the
sale, and when II Is alledgcd that the
plantation aud iis proceeds aud prop
erty on II had been the property aud
In the possession Of David Il. jig
gifts for that length oi time.
Upon the whole evidence, we think
the conveyance cannot he held as one
made In good faith, within the mean
ing OF the statute, and that Il Is In
opcrativeas to the right of the widow.
The statute authorizing convey
ancc by the husband, 20 operate as
a bar Of his widows dover, IA In de-
rogation Of the common law rights
of the widow, and should receive
such a construction as will fully pro-
tcct her rights within the limitation
10 the husbands power Of alienation
specified in il. That limitation is,
that the deed must be made in good
faith and for a valuable consideration
and if it appears that it was mad,
under circumstances of suspicion il
either of these respects, it is incum.
bent on the party relying on it, tc
remove such suspicion, and to show
that it was made in good faith and
for valuable consideration. II il
clear that if it appear that il wa
made with the intent TO defeat th,
wife's right of dover, it would b.
, void; and if there be circumstance
: tending to cast suspicion on il in tina
/, respect, it cannot be sustained unles
the suspicion be removed.
; Again-it is said that there is er
! ror in the decree in allotting to th
widow the exclusive possession of tn
e dwelling house and other improve
Q ments attached TO it, in which th
deceased resided at the time of hi
death.
i There appears to be no suficien
n proof in the record, that "manifes
q Injustice would be done to the chill
a dren of the deceased by giving th
4 dwelling house and premises, TO tn
q widow. Prima facie, il is her legi
. right TO have possession of them, an
: without proof that manifest inju,
, tice" would arise to the children b
/, her exclusive possession Of then
4 that right cannot be disturbed. In
i deed, there appears to he clear cv
!, dence that It would be improper
: give a joint possession of the prem
!, ses to the widow and TO the appe
,s lants, since the relations subsistin
, between them would scarcely be col
10 ducive to their harmony and mutut
10 happiness in such circumstances.
or We are Of opinion, upon the for
4 going views, that the decree is co
10 rect, and should be affirmed.
a But the decree is erroneous in d
,s rccting the commissioners, in aIlottir
!, dover to the land claimed by Robi
ii son, To put the widow in possessio
n Robinson was a stranger to the estat
o. and not amenable 10 the epower Of d
- Probate Court so far as possession
4 the land claimed by him is decree
y, To that extent the decree must
10 reversed. But il is correct in awar
al ing dover to the widow in the lal
be claimed by Robinson. Jiggetts :
'or Bennett, 81 Miss.
In all other respects, the decree
affirmed at the appellants costs.