The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1881-04-21

"a. TATE, II Al.
Apuaal from the Chancerv Court of
I'd cake County, Hon. T. Il. Graham, Chan
ceitoT
IA George T. Allen and Z. c. his wife
owuei a certain land, which had been
xcouyaved to them Jointly. Under the law
Il previous to the Code of 1850 u 1197) these
parties were neither joint tenants nor
tenants In common, but held by eutireties,
with the right Of -uryiyorship upon the
death Of either. 4 Miss, l6; 90 Miss,
58l.
Iu 1872 Allen and wife sold and con-
good .E I.,.,l o., \gn.Ia,p Tata Several
notes ioI the purchase MONEY "eie 1AAeu
payable to "''e0rge l. Allen and Llza I.
Allen. or bearer"
T,lg-1 Ga,rge r. Allen died intestate
--...l .t.;t.l.o,, -
/ Ae'' i's aus wy '''' -'''
vlEinE hiin. Tate having dled without
PAWN. all Of said debt, this bill WAS fled
Nv NIr- Allen i'm her own right to enforce
.f.t- t.f...,, In. III, r,ic, of
. collection oi l"e na'4ice uue' Inc "iie %
Napoleon Tate ana his children were mace
parties defendant. They demurred to the
bill ON the following grounds
r-.-.,-.,,+ .f..,,,it,,
. Ipf h"hJ'iuteI oil lAe chiluIeH Oh Neo'
r. Allen. deceased.
? Because no administration had baen
~. II :. ia
s''"'o" '' ''e 1S-'''o % -1''en anu ~ uiu
not appear that the debts mad been pad, nor
that the estate was solvent
The demurrer WAS sustained and and
l -:.l: t:f e.
''N'' ".'- 1''"-1' "'''''' "''i''i ~ "l0
an amended bill Complainant Appealed
The opinion is given i'm full
r.Rrpurrf /
~ -
i"N t'A"l W "IIC'i'uo - O"''oI' ~
money Huy "1 '"e HItS' = Nl'"I3 "HcsH.i
SIC WIZ '' 'Ce'"''t''i' ''' l'I % - -
thr representative oi Htt uTee]5eu hu9p'hu
anu e' pt,Eee OF "''' Ci 'lie ng Ja u o'ie
1i 't'ei"- J".."' l't 20 ''g '0!1 'Vi VI
lec15" 7ti I've - ..'S "a. ~ '.'5 P"y "iio
may i'"'"Hl i'oo''1 20, - - - ~
tt Ia" oI ia equity, "t1h'ut joining thG
representative ot lhe decea7ed payte.
entity j. ~ " 'shoUFi' on neal Irop'
Is, Jones Cn Mortgages 1902 A""tqy ::
H"s'H 90 Ma. 900, -Ht'I"' q. Hty'osas,
MIch. 10
Certainly the defendants cannot OBJECT TO
3 recovery by the complainant, Tor that VIII
bar all claim on them by reason OF the
notes, and they have nothing to dO with
the appropriatiou of the money.
From the argument of counsel here, We
are led 10 believe that the ease was decided
below. as If the right of the appellant to
r,tintain her .uit depended on her RIGHT -
an of il,a money due Inv the notes nv virtue
,,f her surviy.T.bin Of her husband and
tha rh4praII,r held tbat she was not so
entitled and therefore had not the rigbt to
Lii 4 sr4faJ above ,he wa, entitled
IN collect n. survivinr pavee and. as sur.
viying wife. she was entitled to the notes
and 10 their proceeds. She and her husband
held ,he land bv eltirsties. and sold it and
took notes for the purchase money payabJe
~ both ON the death of one. the notes
vested I'm the survivor This was the we'll
settled rule. in the absence of statute a. to
promises TO husband and wife l Daniel on
Nee Inst. 2l5: Pe1.fer a.. Dicken. u
Miss, | Bishop on Married Women, Z 1903
lo.; Tyler on lni' and Cow 9 Zoi.
nv -, ,t;tIad
against the representatives of the husband
To a promissorv note payable To the husband
aud wife where 1t Is given for property or
rnor , ~ 'I r',, All W. N ssa