Delaware tribune. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1867-1877, 1867-12-05
Court of chancery.


woMAN's LEGAL MISUNDERSTANDING
DECISION.
Chancellor Bates, on Friday last, made de-
cree in the Court of Equity, of more than usual
interest and novelty.
1t was of interest as protecting tho female sex
from fraud, and placing their right to protection
on the same equitable and moral considerations,
as have hitherto governed the Court In cases af-
focting the rights of the stronger sex.
William Chandler pending marriage engage
ment, three days before the marriage, without
the knowledge of his intended wife, made vol
untary conveyance of all his real and personal es
tate to one of his sisters in trust to defray certain
expenses of the said William Chandler during his
life time, and on his death to be divided between
his sisters, &C., &c. This sister, Mrs. Hollings-
worth, took possession of the estate received the
rents and profits, &C., &c. The marriage was
consummatcd three days after thccxecution and
delivery ofthe deed. The parties lived together as
man and wife, and child was born to them, one
of the complanauts in the Bill Of Equity.
On the death Of William Chandler which occur
red in 1862, his widow aud son, Edmund by his
next friend, filed bill in Equity, to have the
deed set aside on the ground of fraud on the mar
ital rights of Mrs. Chandler, and also as against
the son Edmund Chandler, on the further ground
that in view of sound public policy which
should govern the courts in their treatment Of the
marriage relation, a deed made with a view
committing a fraud on that relation should be
void sin toto,' and thus incidentally let in thief
heir to an estate which but for this fraud he
might have inherited.
The Chancellor dcerecd Dover to the widow
with one third Of the rents and profits from the
| time of William Chambers death, but refused
to decree the deed void altogether, on the ground
that there were in existence no legal tights affect
ed by the fraud but the right of Dover of Mrs.
Chandler; and expectations merely were not un-
der the protection Of Court Of Equity. Had
there been fraud in obtaining the deed by the par
ties taking the beneficial interest under tit would
have been pronounced void altogether. There
| was not the slightest evidence of such fraud
Had there been knowledge by Mrs. Hollingswortll
of the engagement and collision with William
to deprive his intended wife of Dover, it might
be ground for setting aside the decd altogether,
but there was no evidence of any knowledge by
Mrs Holingsworth of any engagement The
Chancellor could not find asy ground upon which
TO pronounce the deed void " in toto
In regard to the right to Dover, however, he
was perfectly clear, and made the following
points 3
1. Dover was lega. right, which was proper
ly the object Of protection by Court Of Equity.
.. Wherever Equity would protect against q
fraud made on the marital rights of the husband
by the intended wife, on precisely such fucts
would the Court protect the right of Dover IN
the wife-that is, such facts us would constitute
fraud in favor of the husband as against the wife
would also constitute fraud against the husband
in favor Of the wife,
3. The Chancellor adopted the latest rulings o.
: the English and American Courts, and held, tina
If during pending engagement of marriage, o
man should, without the knowledge of his in
tended wife, convey away his real estate by vol
untary conveyance, ii is in fraud of his intende
wife's marital rights, and is so far void.
4. 1t is not necessary that the intended wifi
should even know of the ownership of real estat
by the husband, us the equity of the case was no
based on the fact alone that her expectation
were not realized but the fraudulent and sccrc
alteration of their relative positions to her detri
ment.
There appear to have been but two cases dc
u cidcd in this point, one in Kentucky and til
other in Michigan, though Chancellor Kent
Perrinc W.. Perriuc afirms MS legal propositio
8 that secret conveyance during pending CT
n gagcmcnt of marriage by husband of real cstat
: will be void us TO the Dover of the wife.
This is one of the many important decision
y with which the Chancellor since he assume
. office, has been increasing our store of judici
y learning
II 1t is to be hoped that the public, at 10 dstai
II day, may have the benefit of these results of riE
. learning in some published reports.
The solicitors for the complainants were Mcssr
$ Bradford and Higgins, and for the defendant v
: s. McCaulley, Esq.