, 1873-11-22
retain tho propcrty-to this ho to,n,irrod. Tho
Surrcnsp Court Inns now finally settled tho oaso

ohareory, oxllibltoa II. Tho Oook Circuit Court by
Thonaa Adlarl ngaiuns Mary Ann Ad!nrd, and is be-
ian aud tho rroos in o ca,'so 4 thst tcso artioa
wsro married III 1813 complainant then being about
a yoaIs Of nge, JaAt out Of ha aprreneonp a' the
1898, they l'vsl tosether rs nm an. %ifo oompnh
owsier of frame building, situated on lcaaed land i,
tho oity Of chcago, wortI at TINT time abont $500.
md % small aaay M1f "SF' Il frnafe ns :' coasnt ] wes
;mnrrlago nd savsic nj his limo to H nr, realS-
Theso earnlngs, cenlaaant al!eaes, he nlseea In ta
nosa aud liz lavina ,ono outside q ha art, to kemp
tho 1ac, nnd to invest them from time to tttnoi Buch
Hses so8 eors aea @ sy tsss a2 Fhns hcts
appoara to have ecn nix dloront pieces Of real e.
tato-clty loa-.clat.s to hnyo been purchased with
for which. i alleged, woro taEcn BY hs wife In ler
o,vn @ nane with coinp!ananrs hnowle'go Or CONSENT
to purchases wero made Int tho tlecs were mado to
them jointly, mud ho aubpoHing such was tho proper
noae o1 conveying ren estate to h married man waa
believing thnt tho title to te lois waa In iniaef alone
1Io alleges FROM tho tno tho lots purchased hn
on. those most valuable: improved P and s rs-
paised tho buildings md fenccs on otter 1ots,;
aa Oh s hsss 81 tas Mo- u II da4g g Ss n
largo brick house. three two-aory franc dwelling
housed on othor lois Hubbard street, An three cot
Which Is alleged to 10 SIS 5o0J With rental Of 200
poE an4!!ni Tho acoln and objects of tlc hl - to
nut, ho alleging lie has o lii ior divorce, and that
dofenduut II making preparations to sell tho property
au lace 1t beyond sonrninants rcach ahe herscn to
ako her departure for foreign country with her par.
amour 1t Ia charged thnt dofouant bus collected all
tle ruats 10 parI u which has sho psi4 over to con.
DO compelled to mite with complainant alono, in
docd Of truat to third party for complainant benz
re s ao s II
les;ed " es for raat and that ao 10 onjoinsd from
saepe eas %nsr s ore9 g tho
tao possossion and curas ot tho property ind collect
thu rents. An injunction was allowed BY the Circuit
Judge an at'avita roeaivod by tao Circuit Court tn
appeared aI entered motion to dissolve tho nunc-
tioh which tho Court disallowcd, and required do
eoivcr ~ prayed for Tho defendant put in Eer M
swers uucF PATH although tllo oath sas varied by
e%aaan 1 LIS s The edas thu me-.
answes which sa,, were atsaowed MD replication nat
plainant allowing 70 him onc.hait tho properly 10
sSas 1sas as'1S m iii y nsns sn s
swor under tho oath, tho anawor oi dotendant
aithou ;1'.,;aa naor OATH can 10 regarded oily
oath akla no forcc.-sfooro Of u1. '. Hunter, om,
311 .Wlenaorg Y: Murphy, 90 I'll. M; Wa.wosk '.
D:E Tsy ssasnes aspa' sga n:1s E sasss but
from tho whole tenor Of ii, we arc satisfied tue pro-
cceds Of complainanta labor amounted to many thous-
and dollars, part Of which e put In possession Of de-
fenaant, not gft but for safe-leepiuB, sho bcg
woatl OF business capacity, Of mature age. aud Of
sona ad p of is Guinness ,tu a3
conhdlng fully In tho fidelity and judgment Of his
Tim nnhu+to,s ,n;1, ,,,,,, A., r,,,rJ ,ro n, +,o
proofa nnow that compaiuunta money raid for those
pieces M @ 9f property, aud for what parcels? Was
ns nsp s s9 .poas 70 @ - a'qara u rass IL such trust IL
which complainant is tho only benuaciury7 Can
married woman bo A!rusteo for her husband and
compelled to perform the trust7 We do not deem 1t
necessary to determine either Of these question: In The
Ii appears there wers six di1oront parcels Of roal
ea1te p'rShasod and doe!ls taken iu The nane Of a-
pelIant: They ;, aEe described II Exhbita 4,
IN Exhibit tho 13th oi ostober Of tic sa1no year,
owner. These deeds cortain thcso worls "This con
yoyancs Is made to said hIary Ann Aalard, wifo Of
for her sole aud ueparate uac, benefit, aud beoof
Separate % eatate indarendent of her husband" Tie
It Ia claimed by appellee that hc had at this tins
ability from to earnings by laborlous prosecution OF
hia art to make these purchases aud to pay for them,
this for true what is tho Reasonable presumption, this
clauae being inserted III each Of these ecda with tho
kMn9w9go M M Of soman %o examined e .ps;rs
between the parties were Of tho most cordial nature,
aud tue infcrenco must be, expressed III tho deeds,
Bt!tute in appellant separate esate, wholly indcpend-
cnt Of him. 1n fact, thare is room for Inference
I ao '1 IL a os eomanan sRs h4as q wS sis
Inconsistent "3sh the terms Of the deed. Such pro-
vision for the wife. at tho tinc It was made, was not
estraFagant or unreasonable. Prudential conslera-
toua might well conariro with marital regard to pro-
yiao something certain, for onn complainant had
tho facts pertaining to these purchases rerIay Us to
imply trust but teud strongly to showa settlement by
somp!sinsn. Of THIS property lo Ls wife ~ an n-
Court.
As regards tho property described In Exhibits g. D,
Fl and i, tho evidence Is not entirely satisfactory
tho whole Of It, whilst appellant inBiBts sho paid for
thereon. 1t s difficult to believe in the face Of tho
ton of tue motives which usually prompt conduct that
complainant intended hts earnings, which were hrgc
and which he so ofton deposited with his wife, ahoud
bo applied by her IN making provision for herself
settled upon his wife very valuablo estate, aud
thereby naslo ample provision for her 1t ia s.ou II
n III Ss to bsSe 9 he dssgasd M
elnslseiy ei.,,d Men o1e not SO generous and We
sustain Tie theory Of appellant That these parcels Of
property were Intended Us separate provision for her
Complainant had gres cosneo IL totsa So Suaness us
qualifications md good Judgment Of bis wife, and that
she would make proper use Of tho mems with which
them in juaicions manner III which, tho results
show, he not mistaken. Il Ia doubt ~ argued
psng L. onsy il e RsSs q s ws as 70
vision io5 hor e1olusive beaaa yet anch pres',np-
1aborer deposits with bis wife hia daily, weeky or