Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-07-19
SUPREME COURT.
Condensed Decisions, Reported fI
the Memphis Appeal by Il.
Clay King, Esq.

No. -. Blackwell vs.. Blackwell
From Memphis Chancery Court.
Mary A. Philpot in view of MARI
age with John Blackwell conveyed t,
Henderson Owen all her property
with the design as declared in the in
Strument, to guard and protect > tht
property so conve ed "against tbt
uncertainty efIhR nan events and thu
vicissitudes of fortune, so that none o
the property shall ever be subject t.
the payment Cf the debts of JOIN
I Blackwell" her intended husband
and to prevent the same from being
" otherwise wasted or injured" The
( property was however conveyed Il
! Owen in trust for the following uses
, to wit:
" In trust for Mary a. Philpot un.
til the sOlemnizatiOn Of the said in.
tended marriage, and then upon trust
that John Blackwell be permitted du.
ring the joint lives of himself and
Mary A. PhilpOt, his intended wife,
TO also control, work, manage andd i-
rect all the said property as he may
Judge best, receiving and applying the
earnings, proceeds and profits OF the
NdlAlC AOl lllC VO1All USE anu bClAOiiE ~
himself and the said Mary A. Phil
pot, and for the support, maintenance
and education of the issues of the said
intended marriage, if any there be-
Ia q subsequent part of the contract a
power Of sale on certain conditions
was issued to John Blackwell and his
wife. John Blackwell, the intended
husband, asSented to this conveyance.
After its execution Mary Philpot and
John Blackwell intermarried and
lived together for seventeen years,
when Blackwell died, deyising his esl
tate TO his own kindred. No chill
dren were born of the marriage. AT
ter the death Of her husband Mrs.
Blackwell sought by her bill in Cham
Gerry TO charge the estate of Black
well with the incomes and revenues
of her property for the seventeen
wears which he had received.
Also she claimed against his
estate recovery for whatever OF
the original property conveyed, which
he had sold and had not reinvested,
for the benefit of his wife. Held,
ri 4. That the corpus of the property,
the estate in existence at the time of
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, and
held the same by entireties, and tina
whatever of these incomes remained.
at the death of the husband. or had,
been invested TO the joint use of the.
wife and husband, and existed in this.
shape at his death, went to the wife,
by suryiyorship, If the wife had died,
what remained of these incomes at
her death would have gene in the
same way to the husband, But yher-,
ever the husband had appropriated
these incomes to his own use, they
become his property, for which no ac-
eountcould be allowed the wife against
him orhis estate.
3. To the extent that the husband
converted to his own use the corpus
OF the wife's property, his estate is
liable; no interest, however, to be
charged on the estate so converted,
during the life time of the husband.
4 This marriage contract did not
exclude dover or Wife's distributable
share in the estate Of her husband.