Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1873-06-27
IMPORTANT LEGAL DECISIONS.

WoMENs RIGHTS IN SEPARATE PERSONAL EsrATl
At the session of the Circuit Court, Judg'
Mclaughlin presiding, which closed on Monday
morning. several decisions were rendered, invol
wing very large interests, and many new Legal
points, which have been the subject of discus
sion in the community for some time past. We
give summary of them:
DAVIS CREDITORS Us: DAVIS TRUSTEES.
This case was briefly this Some time previous
to his death, Braxtou Davis, once a very veal
thy citizen of Augusta but then in embarrassed
circumstances, made an assignment Of all his
real estate to trustees for the benefit of his credi
tors and in consideration of his wifes signing
the deed of trust, settled upon her large
amount of property, in the aggregate, about
$50, OoO After the death Of Davis, his estate
not holding out to pay debts, the creditors
brought suit to set aside the settlement on the
wife as excessive, and it appearing to the court
that at the date of the execution Of the Deed of
Trust the value of the wfe's contingent right of
Dover was about So, 600, entered decree, set
ting aside the settlement on the wife, and de-
creed her this true amount of her contingent
right Vi DOWcT. Outuey q uAS liunoiJ W. sAo
creditors, and Stuart for defendants.
WOODS AND WIFE vs. DAVIS AND AIS
was branch of the above case. Sometime in
1859 or 80, Braxton Davis qualified as TRUSTEE
for his daughter, Mrs Woods. In June, 1862
he collected between $4,000 and $1,000 Of land
bonds belonging to Mrs. Woods and used it in
payment of his own debts Decided that the col
lection is not to be scaled. Stuart and Fultz
Fultz, for defendant Niche b Niche, and
John Paul & Haas, for plaintiff
RICHARDSON AND WIFE as. NJ CHEsNEY AND AIS.
This case involved the American Hotel proper
ty, in Stanton. Sometime before the war, the
American Hotel property was decided to trustees
for the benefit of Mrs. Samuel B. Brown. Mrs.
Brown had the right to dispose of the property
by will, and by a written note, to her trustees
witnessed by three witnesses, requesting them to
sell the property, it could be sold during her
life, provided the proceeds of the sale should be
10 invested and held by the trustees for the benefit
of Mrs. Brown, subject to the same trusts as the
property originally conveyed, and if not dis
posed by sale or. will, then to descend to the
children of Mrs. Brown. During the war Mrs.
Brown sold or gave the property to her son.
Samuel B. Brown, Jr., and her son-in-law, A.
s. Lara. They, in the latter part of 1862 sold
the property to VIM. s. McChesney and J. G.
Nadenbousch, for $50, 900, who paid the money
to Lara and B Brown Jr. Mrs. Brown address,
ed a written request, properly witnessed, to her
trustees, directing them to make the deed to the
purchasers, bat the trustees not being satisfied
hat the proceeds of sale had been re-iRvssted, in
. conveyance. Thus the case stood until the
Heath, intestate, of Mrs. Brown, in August, 1868,
when this suit was brought by the three children
Of Mrs. Brown, who had not contracted for the
sale Decree setting aside the sale as to the three
ifths belonging to the three plaintiffs. and the
husband, directing a conveyance by Samuel B.
Brown, Jr., of his one-ffth, and by Lara of his
life estate, in right of his wife, and an account
IF rents and profits since the death of Mrs.
Brown. Shelley & Bumgardner Niche & Niche,
and Echols, Bell Il Catlett, for the Brown heirs
NcChesney and Nadenbousch. The case will go
to the Court of Appeals.
MARRIED WOMEN's RIGHTS IN sEPARATE EsrATEs-A
NEW DECISION
The case of Burnett and wife Us. Hawpes E1-
ecutors, decided at the late term of the Circuit
Court Of Augusta County, on an appeal from
the County Court of said County decresd point
not settled by any decision Of the Court Of Ap-
peals in Virginia.
The County Court, in this case, decided that
q married woman is regarded in equity as to the
estate settled upon her for her separate use as
! femme sole, aud has capacity to dispose of such
separate estate as though she were sal juris, and
hat the separate personal estate and the rents
and profits of her separate real estate will, in
equity, be subjected to the satisfaction of her
debts and contracts, and decreed satsfac ton of
bonds, executed by the married woman, as the
surety of her husband out Of the personal estate
and the rents and profits of the separate real es-
tate of the married woman. The decree of the
County Court was affirmed. Although these
are well settled doctrines of the English Courts
Of Chancery, no case has been decided by the
Court of Appeals of Virginia, where the separate
estate of a married woman hiss been directly
held liable for her contracts The case will
probably go to the Court of Appeals. Counsel
for plaintiffs ip error, Shefey & Bumgardner, for
defendants, Judge D. FuItz.
-a-<-~O+S>e