Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1878-11-08

IMPORTANT DECISION AFFECTING THEIR TRANS
ACTIONS AS TO PROPERTY.


TKPCRTANT DECISION AFFECTING THEIR TRANS
ACTIONS AS TO PROPERTY.
Last week Judge Humphreys, to whom the
case Of Smith agt. Tome ct al. had been referred
by Judge Macarthur, gave his decision, and I,
is an opinion OF considerable interest, affecting
the rights OF married women. The complainant
being the owner OF certain valuable property
| in her own name, acquired as patrimony, and
her husband being involved in debt, at his 90
lieitation executed deeds OF trust On her prom
debts, not receiving cent for her own benefit,
but the whole being used In payment OF the liza
bilities OF the husband. The note secured by
the deed becoming due the defendant, as trus-
tee, was about to sell when she, through Gen
II. T. Crfttenden, filed a bill to enioin the sale
ana temporary restraining order was made
Judge Humphreys, after reciting the facts in
the case, quotes the decision in u s. Trust com
pany agt. Sedgewick %. S. s. c. Law Reporter
August IL, 1881 In which Justice Swayne says:
'The sphere OF the avOcatiOns and duties OF
husband and wife are different. Usually she
KNOWS little Of business or property interests
IL is natural that she should cOnfide In his integ-
rity and be guided in everything by his kindly
judgment as, She Is always SUD protestate uiri
throws around her.
He quotes Lippincott agt Wallace, 81 U. S. s.
Z. Reports, In which it is clearly and distinctly
announced that the statutory estate does not
amalgamate or destroy or impair the equitable
one He refers to the court of Alabama having
Oyerruled the decisions OF former court, but
ton. He quotes sections 72I-s-9 and 80 Of the
statutes the Married WOman'S act) and con-
tinueS: "These provisions Of the statute cast
the legal estate in the separate property directly
upon the wife But are there not also legal dis
abilities attaching TO married woman, even in
regard to her separate estate. Does not the
statute itself Indicate its jealousy In throwing
its guards to the wife, against the influences
which might be exercised by the husband in
the destruction or appropriation to his own use
OF %d her property: In Sykes vs. Chadwick Us
distinction is properly adhered to between
the right OF dover and the separate
estate. The one does not interfere with
the other under the statutes OF Congress
The statute of Alabama, reviewed in Lippincott
vs.. Mitchell, in the light OF judicial contraction
OF the state, does adjust the separate estate and
dover so as to arrive through the statute at the
equity. We must keep in view constantly the
right of estate in dover, If the wife survives the
husband; the right OF tenancy by courtesy if
the husband survives the wife and Child OF the
is evidence of life, and the separate estate of
married woman either equitable or statutory
The absolute right of the husband to personal
property is undisputed. In constituting the
hold on to the equitable view OF il, where that
can be done consistent with statutory direc-
tons. The wife is entirely freed from the inter-
ferenceS Of her husband, in any way whatever
with her real and personal estate. Might. not
possibly. with her chooses in action.
The object of the law-both common and
q
settlement for families. If the statute does it.
it is preyentOry, and the deed conveying away
that settlement. if it strips the wife. or wife
and children is declared void, as in Iippncott
and Mitchell. II you have to appeal to equity
II equity can be done, it will so appOrtiOn the
FUNDS as that neither creditor nor family shall
lose all. He quotes from COmegys vs. Clarke
and C0megys. ~ Maryland. page Ill: 1T is
perfectly competent for wife to give mort
gage upon her property to secure the payment
Of her husbands debts, and mortgage execuJ-
DTh En1 ~
without considerations" and continues: It is
safe to follow the more restricted doctrine laid
down III the case OF Central Rank VS.. Copeland,
IS Maryland, and one or two other cases in ga me-
volume. In the case OF Central Bank vs. Cone
land, the term OF the curteSy was subjected to
payment If that term should arrive. The con-
troll or the property during married life is left
with the husband, when he would be tenant by
curteSy. in event of the contingencies to make
him such tenant. Some restrictions and a,,-
thoritatlve exposition of the rule, according to
law as to dealings between husband and wife
must be made, else We go back to the old con-
troll OF him over her. We should, If we can
make such a disposition of the matter, in ac-
cordance with authority, as will secure to credi-
Tor and family something of an equivalent for
bad bargain TO each. To declare the deed and
note void might not be equitable; so it may not
be equitable TO refuse an Injunction against
selling the house and lot.
III the dealings between husband and wife are
void as to his or her disposition OF separate
estate 10 destroy il, yet, in the absence of full
iI
gether so long as the relation existed She may
cucumber II to an extent which will not de-
priye the family OF some means of support and
if she has not, in her lifetime, leg llly parted
with the fee the husband would be tenant by
the courtesy. Then. if she has encountered it.
the joint right OF possession may be subjected
The cases which may be found in Ve5ey for
authority to bind the wife as security for her
husband go only TO the extent OF Subjecting an
annuity OF the wife.
IL Will be fOund'that their is a distinction and
difleTeIcebetWeenta taking the estate and de strOy-
ing IT forever and transferring ii to some one else
and Subjecting an annuity. He therefore ordered
decree that the trustee take possession OF the
house and lot described in the bill and rent the
premises, and out of the proceeds OF such rent
or lease, apply TO the payment of the note and
and mortgage sum sufficient to pay the in
tereSt, az six per centum per annum on the
note, and the balance to he paid into the hands
OF complainant until the amounts so applied
to the tote shall pay the face or principal there
OF. or until the further order of this court and
enjOining sale in fee.
Mr.. T. T. Crinttenden appeared for plaintiff
and Messrs. Cresswell, WOrthingtOn, and Heald
for defendants.
Washington Market, Retail Prices.
MEATS.-Beef. sirloin, zoe. per h.. do porter
hnnCQ rih CT 0o0 .cfoa