Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-04-04

SUPREME coURr DECISION.

---------->----- =
opss,ss u ~ Cssss 10 ~ css ~ csriss
ssas 4 Gssu W. Keen, sssn ~ csSvesnf
sssu Cssss ~ Dsuviils. :
The Court Of Appeals on ThnrsdAy
last rendered . decision in the case q
:. Christian 4 Gum cs. Keen &C.,
reversing the decision Of the Corpors-
ton Court Of Danville. Judge Lswis
delivered the opinion Of the court,
which was concurred in by ell the
other judges except Judge Lacy, who
dissented on one point--namely, the
power Of Mrs. Keen to give deed Of
trust. The case was IS follows:
Mrs. Keen owned some real estate in
DAnvilIe, settled to her separate uss
upon the following trusts: Which lot
or parcel Of land is to be held In trust
by the said w. w. Keen, Jr., trustee
as aforesaid, for the separate use Of the
said Mary V. Keen, wife Of the said
John Thomas Keen, free from ell debts
heretofore contracted, or which may
hereafter be contracted, by the said
John Thomas Keen; and il at any time
the said Mary v. Keen shall consider it
to her interest to sell or otherwise dis
pose Of the said lot Of land and invest
the proceeds thereof in other real Or
personal estate, the said w. w
Keen, Jr., trustee ss aforesaid. when
ever the said Mary v. Keen shall sig
nifty, in writing, her wishes in relation
to such sale or other investment Of the
said property, shall make such sale or
other investment, the proceeds thereof
to be held by him for the like benefit Of
the said Mary v. Keen, upon like con-
ditions. and with like restrictions -
those first mentioned in this instrument.
John T. Keen, the husband Of Mrs.
Mary v. Keen, being engaged Hbusi-
ness in Danville in the year 1877, made
an arrangement with Christian 4 Gum,
merchants of this city, fer them to
make him advances from time to time
during the twelve months between the
lst of March, 1877, and the lst Of
March. 1873, to secure which advances
he and his wife and her trustee united
in giving deed Of trust on her afore-
said separate estate.
There being q large balance due to
Christian 4 Gum on account Of ad-
vances made under said deed of trust,
and the same not being paid, Christian
& Gum directed the trustee to sell un-
der the deed Of trust. In the mean
time, John I. Keen having died, his
widow, the said Mary v. Keen, sought
to enjoin the sale on various grounds,
and the Corporation Court Of Danyille
granted her perpetual injunction, on
the ground that she had no power to
charge her separate estate for her hus-
bands debts. From this decree Chris
tian & Gum appealed TO the Court Of
Appeals, which court reversed the de-
cree below in all respects.
Upon the question OF the power Of
Mrs. Keen to charge her separate estate,
the Court was Of opinion that as an in
cident to her separate estate she had
the full power to dispose Of it or en-
cumber it as she might choose, with
the concurrence of her husband, and
that this general power was not re-
stricted by the special power conferred
on her of selling aud reinvesting with
the concurrence of her trustee. The
only other question of interest decided
arose out of Mrs. Keen's contention
that several drafts which Christian K
Guam accepted for John I. Keen before
March |, 1877, and paid after that
date, did not constitute advances Sc
cured by the trust deed.
On this point the Court of Appeals
held that the ddrdHces were made when
the drafts rere paid, and not when
they were accepted, and that said ad-
vances rere embraced in and secured
by the deed Of trust. The Court Of
Appeals established the amount claimed
by Christian q Gum as the correct
amount due, and held the same to be q
valid lien on the separate estate Of Mrs.
Keen.
Messrs. Christian & Christian and
Colonel W. w. Gordon were counsel
for Christian & Gum in the Court OF
Appeals, and Messrs. Peatross & Har-
ris, Of Danville, for Mrs. Keen.