, 1870-05-06
SEPARATE ESTATES OF MAR.
RED WOMEN.


Decision OF the Supreme Court OF
Missouri.
F1p1s. lie St Louis Democ,us, lay2
The following decision was rendered yester-
In die Supreme Court Of Hissorr, Ha7rh 7<rn,, 1870
William schlatEosh, plaintiff IN error, e. Peter
the St. Louis Circuit Court
| cPEIoY OF THE COURT.
The competency Of a married WOMAN to bind
| her separate property, by giving notes snd
oshe1 obligations, can no longer be regarded
as an open question in this State, however un-
settled the doctrine may he elsewhere As to
her separate property, she is here regarded as
jf1nne sole, and, as to that, competent to
make contracts, which court Of equity viii
enforce; not against herpersonaly, but agsinat
her separate estate; aud not only 30, but the
| note, is evidence OF her intention to chazga
such property It is sufficient pTia1 J1cie
evidence to establish the existence OF such in
tention, without tho Introduction OF other
proofs This Court 90 decided in Coats us.
Robineon, 1o No, 754, Judge Napton deliver
The whole subject YVES again reviewed at
greAt length by Judge Leonard, and With bis
usual ability, in Whitesfdes us. Cannon, n3
Mo-, 457, where the doctrine Of the prior de-
cision Tas restated and reaffiHned in its whole
extent. The sameqpestlons were again brought
up IN Claflin rs. VanWagoner, 50 No., 152, and
tie Court treated them as fully settled b. tie
previous adjudicahons-
We arc not disposed to go behind these de-
cisiops for tie purpose Of aseertaining What
other States and countries. There are doubt
less conflicting decisions ndopposing authori-,
tiee. Here, however, the decisions have been
uniform and consistent, and establish not only
clear and inte!ligible rule, but one that is, on
this time would be both lnezpedient and un-
In the cass at bar it is claimed, however,
that the petition fails to show that the estate
sought to be subjected is, in fact, the separate
property Of the defendant, Mrs. Katherine
Ambs. The petition is demurTed to chiefly on
that ground. The petition AYERS, and the de-
mu17er admits, that the property in question
Was conveyed to HRS. Ambs prior to her inter-
marriage with the other defendant, Peter
.Ambs, for her sole and separate use;" that
said property as her own separate estate" md
that the same is still go owned, held aud en-
ioyed by her." +;
It thus stands admitted by the Plaintiffs.
not only that the property WIS originally con:
veyed to Ars- Anahs for her sole and separate
held and treated, Notwithstanding her subse-
quent intesmamage-xit the ether defendant
It Is TINS seen that, 80 far as the mere words |
Of d conveyance are competent to express and
describe separate estate, such an estate was
created BY the conveyance to 3frs. Ambs, and |
that the subsequent use and treatment Of the
property has eonfo1ned to the character Of |
the eBtate sought to be crested By the deed. |
Az TO what words are appropriate md efficient |
to describe separate estate. zee Sto. Eq- !
Ju., Sec 1889.
II is objected, nevertheless, that the peti-
tion fails to shoT that, in the deed to Mrs. |
Alabs, trustees inte1Tened to take the legal. \
title. It is therefore argued that no separate !
estate waB created By the entKnstment. The !
assumes that trustees were neces-.}
vel founded A separate estate may ba created |
without the Intervention Of trustees. Justice |
Story aays it has been ruled for hundred |
Sears that in equity the Intervention Of rus-
tees in the creation Of separate estate in the /
= unnecessary, although the employ
g conceded to Be the better method Of doingit.
He then proceeds to say that :! Whenever
real or personal property is given or devised,
II settled On woman, ether before or atle7-
marriage, for her separate and exclusive use,
without the Intervention Of trustees, the ln-
,qmtJ, and the wifes interest ,pl9tacte11
.gainst the marital rights Of tho husnana
1b- Sec 1880 Hill states tho doctrine tnas
= Real estate limited to the ssPaIass use y.
naIea Nomap is more Gsinu5 q t1ustess. @ i fhis
,owaver Iha 1,rocee,ls to sa5) is not ahsoluts-
y nece1aarv mi Il there be = clear tust for
ia nss ~ tha 117nn,e, although the property
~ 80, 5ss ~ l.. heS directly without the inter
.ert;eH ~ trustees, and the husband thus |
,eco,,es earnn % entitled at Law, equity viii
'eeonie5 biz conscience effected by the drec-
~, and vii treat him as trustee for hla |
~, (Hl on Trustees, 535, % Am ed
~ aee the numerous authorities cited In SUD- :
,ors Of the te1t.) And this doctrine applies, ,
Though the gift or hequest be to an unmaz-
ed woman, and although euch gift be made L
ithout reference to an immediate marriage, ,
nd not 81 provision for that event. In such
caae subsequent husband is deemed to I
dopt the property in th6 State IN which ha .
nds it, upon the occurrence OF the marriage,
nd in the absence Of any expressed dissent
: disagreement to the contrary. e Sto- Eq.,
d.. Sec 1854. and the authorities therein
ted.)
In the case before US, as alresdy remarked, Z
1e pleadings not only admit that Mrs Ambs
uginally acquired the property to her sepa- +
lte use, hut also that she has ever since en-
,yed that use, and controlled and enjoyed
le property "a her OWL, notwithstanding her
iuterma1dage with the other de-
ecdant- This excludes the fdeA Of the exist
nce OF any arrangement between him md his
ife inconsistent With her separate interest in
le- property. distinction, howevar, is
'ughk to be drawn between the estats aeqni1-
! BY gift, bequest or devise, and an estate
.qui1ed by purchase The case does not ahov. s
ON Mrs Ambs acquired this property, I