Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1883-05-23

tion for divorce, inasmuch az the decree was
to pay cash. and the petition was for amony out
OF the real estate. The oratrlx answers that, adj
hitting the fact, the decree was virtually a COM
pliance, because 1t gives ten thousand dollars as
alimony and makes the alimony alien upon the
real estate. 10y But the defendants say that the
county court had no power TO make decree In
divorce suit that the alimony should be lien
upon the real estate Of the petItionee. The ora
trix answers that the statute gives the court
power to decree either money or real estate al
imony; that II the decree had given all the real
estate Of the defendant to his wife and children,
II certainly would have been as valid and opera
tive as conveyance OF the property; and, that
being 30, when the ten thousand dollars was de-
clared TO be lien, II was good az against William
Foster, and, II the court have power TO give the
land, they have power to create a valid lien upon
II as against him az The defendants claim that
even II the decree was good AZ to what property
William Foster had In his hands at the time Of
the injunction, II could not affect deeds TO
his children from their father made before the
issuing Of the Injunction. The oratrix answers
that the deeds were given and received In fraud
Of the rights OF the oratrix, and that as to her
the real estate stood the same as II no deed had
been given; that the children paid no consdera-
ton and they had, from the circumstances Of the
transaction, constructive notice of the fraudulent
intent OF William In giving these deeds. (5) The
defendants say that the DEGREES OF divorce and
alimony never were recorded In the clerks office
OF the county court The oratrx answers that
the lack OF recording could only affect innocent
and bona tide purchasers for value, which they
were not. 10y The defendants say that II there
Ia any lien on the property II IL the same as an
attachment and must be perfected by levy to give
the court Jurisdiction To that the oratrix says that
| she stands In very different position from an
attaching CREDITOR that she has, and had from
| the time OF her marriage an equitable right In
that property-her homestead in fee and life in
terest in one-third OF the property-which the
husband had no power to dispose of even by will
that she is not claiming to have any new lien, but
Al l.. H..
| purchaser by marriage, upon the property which
| her husband held in trust for herr that all he
could convey to his children under the most IA
vorable circumstances was two-thirds OF his prop
erty; ~ The defendants say that the oratrir had
| ample remedy at law and therefore has no stand
ing in court OF chancery, having confessedly
made no attempt whatever TO assert her rights 10
| a law court. The oratrix says that all the law
could do would be to sustain the set-off OF land
sufficient to pay this alimony, and that II the lien
was In the nature OF an attachment, yet In fact
! within the FIVE months when execution could Is
| sue, the whole time Of payment had been changed
| by new decree, and no award for any execution
had been made since that time; that In this
| cause the oratrix was not obliged TO exhaust all
| her remedies at law before beginning proceedings
in chancery. The court reserved its decision.
| OTHER CASES.
| The other cases heard were; Orson Kimball Of
Cabot against the Boston, Concord g. Montreal
railroad company, in which the defendant;
| NpbClhl peas IN DtT anu IL HAS thNt
| to replead; David b. Fay administrator OF Henry
| X. Gray, late OF Calais, against J. V. r. Kent OF
| Calais, in which judgment Is given the defendant
| Charles A. McCluskey and wife Of Montpelier
against c. j. Gleason, decision reserved; james
| o. Ives, executor against the heirs Of Eliza Sails
bury, decision reserved; II. B. Chittender against
| school district No. In Waterbury, judgment Of
| the county court reversed and judgment for the
plaintiff upon report for $40, interest from July
| l, 1879, and costs Gilman Bill Of Woodbury.
| against Robert B. Dow OF Woodbury., judgment
| OF county court affirmed; John Bodies Of Marsh
field against Moses Shepard OF Lowell decree o.
| the court of chancery reversed and cause re
| manded with a mandate to refer the cause to Q
| special master TO ascertain the amount OF compen
| sation and render decree In accordance with thu
| same, costs except OF the supreme court to be dis
| cretionary with the chancellor; Charlotte L
| Bosworth, Administrative OF the estate OF ID. b
| Bosworth, late Of Berlin, against Harriet Bos
| worth and her son, Gardner s BCsworth late o
Berlin, decision reserved; Truman G. Kelton, exc
utor Of Truman Bennett late of East Montpelier
against Nancy B. Merritt widow Of Truman Mer
rift Of East Montpelier decree Of the court Of chan
Gerry affirmed and cause remanded to that court
Daphne d. Little OF Calais, against C. w. II
Dwinel Of Marshfield and George f. Sibley o
| East Montpelier decision reserved; Bailey
| Newcomb against James Reakes OF Montpelier
| decision reserved Gilman Bill against the tow
Of Woodbury., judgment OF the court In favor o
the plaintiff for 1895 reversed and judgmen
rendered for plaintiff for S2i5; Lycoming Fir
Insurance company against Medad Wright Sol
and Lycoming Fire Insurance company agains
j. 5 Wheelock, decision reserved.