The New York herald., 1876-07-04
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
DECISIONS
WAsUIyCTON 4


oBEYNG CONFEDERATE AUTHORITY THE WAR
NOT FEDERAL QUESTION.
No. s12. Charles Rockhold, plaintiff In error. Va
Thomas Rockhold, william D. Bcvins ct al.--ln error
to the Supreme Court OF the State of Tennessee
The object of this suit to bring the executors OF
the will of Tnopas Rockhod, deceased to account
with the plaintiff Charles Rockhod, ono Of tho lega-
tees The defendant. William d. Blevns OF the
executors answering the BILL said, in substance that
contrary his wishes he forced by military
power that he could not control TO the Of
$1,000 "A from of the debtors of the estate
Coniedcrat te money and pay the receiver Of
the Confederate States Wnen this done the
country was under complete military rule, and
he acted, contrary TO his wishes, under Con.
ederate authority. which he was compelled
to obey. This he claimed excused hun from account
ability to tho plaintiff for t,is amount, and thu
Supreme Court OF the State has decided. To
this decision the writ error has been brought
We cannot distinguish this from Bethel he.
maret 10 Wall 537; Dclmas In Co, Ia Wall, 666,
and .Jarvcr VS.. Reach, Is WaIL 81 The State Couri
has only decided that, principles OF general law
trustee cannot he held responsible to his cestui que
loss Of trust fund the loss has been
accustomed py his own aches bad iah and that tbs
delivery Of the fund this by the defendant
into the HAMS oil the Confederate authorities under
which he dared not distbcy, excused him from
liability to the plaintiff This not federal question,
the dismiss the Tor OF Jurisdlc.
ton must be granted The Chief Justice delivered the
opinion.
POST NUPrIAL SETTLEMENT.
No. as. Sarah Ann Jackson lnow Sarah Ann Dorsey
appellant, VS. simon Jackson-Appea from the Supreme
Court OF the Di Columbia a-The land coutro.
versy in this case was purchased by the vile with
money which she had previous TO her marriage gwen
to her by her father the buildings erected thereon
constructed partly with such money aud partly
with her subsequent earnings. The decd of he land
her name; the contract for the house
made by her alone with the builder; the policy 0l In.
upon the buildings executed to her she
paid the taxes upon the property. II Is true, at
the date OF the marriage, ana when the land was
purchased AMI the improvements were made.
the common law governed IN the District Of Columba
right OF married women TO the personal properly
possessed by them previous to their marriage and nos
secured by settlement or contract to their separate
and TO their subsequent earnings BY that law
the money which the wife then and her sub
sequen earnings belonged exclusively her husband
they vested as absolutely IN him though the money
had been originally his and the earnings tho pro-
cceds of his own labo, and industry This harsh rule
OF the common law founded upon the idea that as
the husband bound by the marriage support tho
wife and tho rest OF the family he entitled what
ever she possessed or subsequently acquired which
available Tor that purpose--a rule which would
have good ground Tor existence had it only APP
pIcd when the money and earnings of the vile werc
properly OF the husband they subject to his dis.
posal without regard to the the bamiy
and ght be taken from them at the oil his credi.
tors parook oil the condition and werc subject to
the fate OF
HIS SEPARATE PROPERTY
But though the money which the wife in tho present
had at her marriage aud her subsequent earnings
must be regarded a. the property OF her husband t
was competent and lawful for him TO allow her 10 in.
vest them Tor her own use to be beyond his
reach and control. Beng at the time free from debt
he could taken whatever money she had whether
given TO her earned by her own labor, and pur.
chased with II the land IN controversy and received tho
deed in her name The investment would then have
been an advancement for her benefit voluntary set.
tleuIen upon her And the subsequent application 81
her earnings TO the construction OF improvements would
have equally been legal disposition oi them Tho in-
provement property settled upon the wile Is for
bdden the husband made with fraudulent
tcntand the moneys used for the purpose do ntcr
fcre with the right OF ex'sung creditors. The law
on the subject OF part nuptal settlements OF this
character Is well settled and VIII bc found
stated in numerous adjud ications OF tho Amer can
The doctrine OF resulting trusts arising
conveyance is taken IN the name OF one person and
the consideration is advanced by another, has ape
pcaton Investments oil this kind. Such trusts are
raised by the law IRON the presumed intention of the
parties and natural equity that he who furnished
the for the acquisition Of property should enjoy
its dement's. But no presumption that personal ben
eli, was intended TO the party advancing The funds os
purchase IN tho name Of ,lothcr arise where an
obligation exists on his pari legal moral to provide
Tor the rranec, as IN the case OF husband lot his
wife or father Tor his chtld. The circumstance that
the grantee stands IN one OF these reations 10 the
party s OF itself sufficient evidence to re.
but the presumption oil resulting trust
advancement for tho grantees benefit
After citng the OF Sexton VS. Wheaton, Il 10 said
that THIS is much stronger in support OF Tho.
pincipc thus announced Fifteen years OF acquescenca
IN the title ana authority o. the wife ought to
be deemed satisfactory OF the
zaion OF The Investments Dy tho husband tho divorce
did not disturb this settlement Ii granted tor
cruel treatment, and there call tor the exercise
OF the authority OF the Court the property the
parties in such case. Reversed. Mr. Justice Ficld
delivered the opinion. Mr. Justice DAVIS disstnted az
10 the application OF the principle held to case on
the ground that the evidence did not warrant It.
ASSIGNMENT PRoNIssoRy NOTES.
No I3 John ). Wills ct al, plaintiffs IN error W.
Horace B Cahin CT al-In error to the Circuit Court
for tho Northern District OF Illinois sHoracc g. Clain
Co., assgnccs of certain pronssory notes sued
wills. Gregg x CO., assgnors oil said notes, on their
contract OF assignment, which made tho state Of
Illinois, and the inquiry whether case OF liability
was made out on tho trial under the peculiar pro-.
visions o! the statute OF Illinois on the subject
There are other things besides Insolvency which
might render suit unavsiline, as for in.
stance want OF consideration In the note or
as IN this case, an adjudication in bankruptcy This
second averment was not mtcd any particular
cause, but was general character and left tns
peader Tree TO show on the trial any reason why suit
would be unavaIling. This pl,aiing IL 10
said, would have been had on demurrer because
not sufficiently specific 10 have enabled dcteuccto n
but II was good after verdict The first could not Ls
pursued ~ reason OF the proceedings IN bankruptcy
lbe burden OF fixing tho date OF dismissal OF be
proceedings in bankruptcy on The defendants aud
the Jury were so instructed Affirmed Mr.. Jususs