The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-05-17
THE COURTS.
Settling a Wife's Legal Status in Re-
lation to Her Separate Estate.
An IMPORTANT DECISION BY JUDGE VAN yORST.
Strange Confusion in District
Court Practice.
THE ECLECTIC INSURANCE COMPANY.

At the time when Bernhard A. Myths and Cornslia
K, his present wife, had made up their minis be-
married, tho wi!c tho owner Of property on
which there was q mortgage Tor s14 600 In relation
10 this properly they entered into an ante nuptal
agreement that II tho fniure husband, who was a
physician, should keep his Office and see his patients
in the future we's house. he would pay the interest
on tho mortgage. After marriage the husband hxed
his professional Office in the front basement aud
pursuance Of his agreement paid years. interest.
amounting 10 $685. Tho husband had u creditor who
insisted that this OF $3.50 paid out for the benefit
OF the wiies property In fraud Of the claims OF him
self and other creditors Upon this theory hc brought
suit in the Supreme Court. Special rcrm to have the
property OF the wic declared liable Tor her husbands
debts To the extent OF the $3.50, which he had OK
pended 4, The oase was submitted TO Judge Van
Worst who rendered decision yesterday, which
must be OF interest TO all wives owning
separate property, as well as to tho legn profession
generally Ho finds matter OF fact that the interest
PAID by tho husband was considered by hun and his
wife as being lieu of Office rent BY various State
laws he says, the right Of the vito 10 the and
joyment OF nor property, real and PERSONAL owned by
her at the time of her marriage. and the rents issues
and profits thereof secured to hcr. ana the
are not liable Tor the debts OF her husband. Chap or
200 Of the Laws OF lS4S, chapter 90 Laws OF 1860
amended by chapter liz, 1859, provides that married
erty may bargain sell and convey such property and
enter contract In reference to the same with
like effect IN all respects as though she were SINGLE
The act OF 1852. section L allows any married woman
10 sue and BIO sued IN all matters having relation 10 her
so!e and separate property IN the same manner as
though she were sole. There seems TO be no lini-
lation as 10 the person with whom the vile may enter
into contract with respect TO her separate property
The Legislature having thought proper to pass laws
giving 10 married woman snch power and rights as
to her own property, see no reason why woman,
in contemplation OF marriage, may not make an agree
~ IA n nprE - n m "a 4
I've Will pay her rent for premises belonging TO her. IN
the event that alter marriage he should occupy them.
And this although he might occupy them with her-or
Husband is bouLd support his family. and tor this
purpose TO iurnish home In The prosecution Of his
profession it was necessary that tho husband should
have place to the visits oil his patients. If
Tor this purpose he chose TO occupy portion oi
house owned ny his wife ! SEQ no valid
reason why hc may not, under existing laws,
to pay her for ITS 1t Is true that the money
he paid this Instance went Keep DO the interest
on tho separate estate OF his wife, But that consti-
tutcs no fraud upon tho creditors OF the husband II
there was subsstng agreement between him and his
wife that he should pay such interest IN lieu OF rent
Tor the use OF the premises. UnGer such agreement
II is improper to call such payment gilt without con-
sderaon. There was consideration IN tho use OF
leased tue same wholly to others and reserved to her
own use all the proceeds That she chose to occupy
with her husband The promises does not IN equity de-
prive her oil her right 10 compensation from him for
iis use of portion thereof Tor his professional Uusi-
II is possible that such arrangements
mus. b. s'' proven. i, may be shat ,hs amount cunt
paid Tor interest tho mortgage Ia more than The
rental value Of the premises occupied by the husband
for his business But oil that thcro 10 Affirmative
evidence, and we Judcaly say that is. Nor
thcro any proof that at The time tho arrangements
was made between the defendants as to tho payment
by TIRE future husband Tor the use Of tho premises no
debt Tho following causes decide questions In
conformahc 10 The views OF the Llaniih -Ainsiy VS.
Meade, Laws, 10; Wright vs. Wright, "a New York,
49, Miner W. Miner. Laws AL. think the plan
III s not entitled TO tho rcei asked, and his complaint
IL dismissed, with costs.