Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-05-12
COURT DECISIONS.
DIGESTED BY W. 3. MARTIN.
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
vIRclNIAN-plLor.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are of Interest to
Our People.
SHANNON v. LAMB.

supreme Court of North Carolina
February 81, 1900.
WHEN LAND IS CONVEYED TO A
TRUSTEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF
A MARRIED WOMAN, TO BE con-
VEYED ONLY BY HIM ON HER
WRITTEN REQUEST, a, CONVEY
ANCE EXECUTED WITHOUT THE
TRUSTEES KNOWLEDGE IS
VOID.
The court says:
The deed of trust to Lamb by Mar
garet and her husband William, was
made during the lifetime CT the trustee
Martin, and also during the lifetime of
the husband William, who Joined in it's
execution. But the trustee. Martin. was
not consulted, knew nothing about its
execution, and was in no way u party
TO 1t. The legal estate was In the trus-
tee. Martin, at the date OF the trust
deed to Lamband Margaret and her
husband. William. We're both living at
that time. The deed of trust made by
Elizabeth Nash to the trustee, Martin,
provides as follows: And the resi-
due. If any, he shall hold upon the
trusts and for the purposes hereinafter
set forth; Upon the payment of the said
note or bond herein described either by
said Elizabeth OF by a sale as herein
provided. all the property and estate.
real and personal, remaining, the said
Martin shall hold In trust for The sole
and separate use and benefit OF Mar
garet Shannon. wife of William Shan
non.and daughter OF said Elizabeth
Nash, her heirs andassigns, to be con-
Veyed at any time in such way and i'm
such parcels o. pieces as the said Mar
garet may In writing request the said
Martin to do: and. upon failure of said
Margaret in her lifetime to direct n con-
Veyance or said property, then at her
ceath the said Martin shall convey the
same to ner children or their reprcsen-
tatives. should any be dead, share and
snare alike. to each child, or the repre-
sentative Of such child as may be dead.
one share" 1t is manifest from the
terms or this deed of trust and settle
ment that the said Margaret and her
husband on the 10th of June. 1885, had
no mower or authority to make the
deed of trust to Lamb. This.it seems to
US. is too well settled by n long and
unbroken line of decisions in this court
to be Disputed.
All these cases seem to DC based up
on Hardy V. Holly. 81 n. c. 661. where
IT Is said"thnt where n fene sole makes
q deed or marriage settlement of her
separate estate. whether real or nor
narate use. her power OF disposition
over the same during coverture Is IL
mited to the mode and manner pre-
scribed by that instrument; and II she
and her husband join In a mortgage
conveying her estate. without the
knowledge or consent OF the trustee and
outside of the powers conferred, such
deed Is invalid" The learned counsel
who argued the case for the defendant
distinctly stated that he did not intend
to attack the doctrine of Hardy v. Hol-
ly, so firmly established by many de-
cisions of this court. but that he hoped
to be able to distinguish this case from
the doctrine established by that line of
authorities. This statement was fair to
the court, and lawyerlike, as we have
always found him to be. But we are
unable to make the distinction that was
attempted to be drawn by counsel. and
we are OF the opinion that the case un-
der consideration falls directly within
the doctrine held in Hardy V. Holly.and
this line Of decisions, and that the mort
sage of William Shannon and his wife
Margaret. to Lamb. passed not estate
whatever.