Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-07-18
SUPREME COURT.
Condensed Decisions, Reported for
Inc Memphis kppeal by H.
Clay King, Esq,

No, ig. Blackwell VS.. Blackwell.
From Memphis Chancery Court.
Mary A. Philpot in view OF marri-
age with John Blackwell conveyed to-
Henderson. Owen ali her property,
Nqth the-design as declared in the in
strufnent, TO guard and protect the
property so conveyed "against the
uncertainty of human events and the
Viclssltudes of fortune, so that nOEe of
the property shall ever be subject to
the payment of the debts f onnn
Blackwell" ..at intended husband,
anQ to prevent the same from being
otherwise wasted or injured" Tie
property was however conveyed to
owen i, ttUst for the following uses,
70 wit;
q In trust for Mary A. FhiipoI an
til the s3laInpiSatiQn OF the said in
tended marriage, and then upon trust
that John Blackwell he permitted du-
ring the j0int lives of himself and
Mary A. Philpot, his intended wife,
To also control, work, manage and di-
rect all the said property IS &c may
Judge best, receiving and applying the
tdEnlnEr; proceeds and profits of the
same for the joint use and heneGt of
himself and the SAID Mary A. Phil
pot, and for the support, maintenance
and education of the issues of the said
intended marriage, lfany there be-"
In a subsequent part of the cOntract a
power Of sale op osf,alR conditions
was lssued tUdOiin Blackwell and his
wife. John Blackwell, the intended
husband, assented TO this Rgayanee.
After its execution Atary Philpot and
John Blackwell intermarried and
lived together for seventeen years,
when Blackwell died, devising his es-
tate to his own kindred, Ma chill
dren were barn Of the marriage. Af-
/ ter the death of her husband Mrs
| Blackwell sought by her bill in Chan
Gerry to charge the estate of Rack
well with the incomes and revenues
of her property for the seventeen
! wears ,.'hich ..i.icn ne had received.
/ Also she claimed against lis
! estate recovery fgr whatever ef
/ the original property conveyed, which
he had sold and had not reinvested,
| for the benefit of his wife, Held,
l. That the corpus of the. property,
| the estate in existence at the time oi
the execution of the convey
ance and the marriage con-
tract, together with its accretions, was
the separate estate of the wife, accord
ING to the terms of the instrument
that the instrument created a separate
estate in the wife, so far as the corpus
Of the property was concerned.
| 2. That the husband and wife, by
the terms Of the deed, took a Joint es
tate in the incomes and earnings, anC
| held the same by entireties, and thai
whatever of these incomes remained
at the death of the husband, or haC
been invested to the joint use of the
wife and husband, and existed in thii
shape at his death, went to the wife
by ysurvivorship. If the wife had died
what remained of these incomes a
her death would have gone in tht
same way to the husband. But wher
ever the husband had appropriated
these incomes to his own use, they
become his property, for which no &C
count could bealiOWed the wife agains
him or his estate.
, 8. To the extent that the husband
J converted to his own use the CORPUS
of the wife's property, his estate i
liable; no interest, however, to b.
4 charged on the estate so converted
! during the life time of the husband.
4. This marriage contract did no
exclude dover or Wife's distributabl
J share in the estate of her husband.