The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1879-08-06
How n Philadelphia a Widow Lost Twen-
ty Thousand Dollars by n Kemar-
riRge Because or Her First Hus.
bands VIII.

/ .e. Il 1luSos SSotSAooJI
President Judge Hanna Yesterday filed NJ
adjudication which takes away from q lady
| the sum OF twenty thousand dollars because
she had entered the bonds OF wedlocE
against the prohibition OF husband now
deceased. !" Man has dominion over bi:
property even after his DEATH" says Black
stone, and the bony skeleton OF Pbineas
Hough, Jr., yet maintains dominion over
the fortune above ground sufficient to pre-.
vent It falling to the use Of another who
stepped into its earthly shoes. When Hougt
died he left behind him a wiie-Elizabe,h
lie also left will, in which he provided fol
her as follows:
"My house and lot, No. SCI north Sew.
epth street, with the appurtenances, unto
my wife, Elizabeth Lynn Hough, her beirs
and assigns, together with the household
goods and furniture and kitchen utensil.
therein; also, the interest OF the sum o
! $4,000 OF my estate, to be paid to her semi
annually for and during all the term OF hel
natural life, II she shall so long remain ms
widow: in case Of her marriage the interest
OF the said sum shall cease. After her de.
cease or marriage, as the case may be, give
and bequeath the said sum of $4,000, to.
gether with all the rest, residue, and re-
mainder OF my estate, to my father, Phineas
| Hough."
Notwithstanding the prohibition in the
will and the penalty attached thereto, Mrs.
Hougb, on December 1e, 1873, married
tAiexander ID. Bonbright. When the trus-
tees OF the estate, George Y. Shoemaker
and George r. Lynn, came 10 file their ac-
count, the heirs OF the father, who had
since died. represented by Furman Shcp-
pard, came into court and asked that the
estate be awarded to them, as the widow,
by her marriage. had forfeited it under the
terms OF the will. Isaac d. Yocum ap-
neared for the widow and Charles Henry
Hart for the trustees. The controversy be-
fore the court is thus put by Judge Hanna: !:
"It is claimed by the widow OF testator
that the condition annexed to the gift to
her, being in restraint Of marriage, is void,
and she is consequently entitled to the in
come OF The fund during life, notwithstand-
ing her remarriage. On the contrary, it IS
contended by the executor OF the will OF
the father Of the testator that the condition
is valid, and the widow having forfeited by
her remarriage all claim to the income OF
the legacy bequeathed, the fund should
now be awarded to him. Able and learned
argument were made, and numerous al-
thorities, both English and American,
furnished and quoted by the counsel
for the opposing claimants; but with
out attempting equal industry and research
the auditing judge is clearly Of the opinion
that the condition annexed to the gift to the
widow OF teStator is such condition In re-
straint OF marriage as would be held to be
in tc1rorem, and therefore void as against
public policy were it not for the limitation
over to the father OF .tcstator upon the re-
marriage of the widow. But the limitation
over upon the breach of the condition being
valid, it follows that the condition itself is
good and must be sustained in order to
carry into effect the intention OF tcstator.
The balance in the hands OF accountants
will therefore be awarded to the executor
OF the will OF Phineas Hougb, Sr., de-
| ceased"