Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-02-10
COURT DECISIONS.
DIcESTED BY w. q. MARTIN.
Exclusively for virgin.an-P Pilot,
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
M'CONVILLE ". N. v. BANK OF
STAUNTON.

Al SoN v. N. V. BANK OF
STAUNTON.
Supreme Court of Appeals OF Virginia.
January 49, 1900.
WHEN THE HUSBAND USES HIS
WIFES MONEY WITH HER CON-
SENT THE LAW PRESUMES A
GIFT BY THE WIFE TO HIM.
WHERE HE CONVEYS HIS PROP
ERTY TO HIS WIEE THE LAW
PRESUMES IT VOLUNTARY, AND
THE BURDEN OF PROVING A
CONSIDERATION is ON THOSE
CLAIMING THE CONVEYANCE.
WHEN THE HUSBAND COLLECTS
MONEY DUE HIM AS TRUSTEE
FOR HIS WIFE, HE MUST AC-
COUNT TO HER FOR IT.
The object OF this suit was to set
aside a deed made by husband to his
wfe OF all property owned by him,
upon the ground that it was made
without valuable consideration and for
the purpose OF hindering delaying and
defrauding his creditors, and 10 sub
lect the property conveyed to the pay
ment OF the debts of the husband
The points decided appear from the
opinion OF the court.
The court says:
The appellant, Mrs. NfcConville. con-
tends that, in setting aside and annul-
ing the deed as to the rents alleged to
have been collected by her husband and
the amount ofthe Henderson debt. the
Corporation Court erred on two
grounds: First, because the evidence
shows that d. ID. McConvile collected
and used in his business her money
n n N
them that he would either. return the
money or convey her his real estate:
second that the legal title to her prom
erty from which IT is alleged the rents
were received stood In the name of her
husband as trustee: that he collected
her money. not as her agent. but "a
her trustee, in which capacity he was
vested with the legal right and autt1or=-
1ty to collect 1t, and that she, being the
penenciary OF those trusts, has the
right to require the payment of the
sums collected by him.
1t Is true that two pieces Of the real
estate referred to were conveyed to the
husband as trustee for his wife. but
under the terms Of the deeds he onlv
held the bare legal title and the wife IS
given the absolute ownership with au
thority to use, possess and enjoy the
property and to receive the rents. issues
and profits thereof to her own use and
win run power to convey or mortgage
1t by a deed in which her husband
united. 1t cannot be said, therefore.
That the rents collected, If any. from
lnese TWO pieces of property by d. D.
McConville were received by him in
trust Tor his wife. and unless the evil
dence shows that the money collected
by him from this source was to he re-
turned 10 her under some contemporan-
eous contract or agreement to that
erect, the wife could not REQUIRE re-
payment of 1t to her.
Where the husband collects ond uces
the wife's money with her know,edre
and consent, the law does moi imnlv tho
promise of repayment, as would be the
ease II they were strangers but pre-
suInes mat the receipt and use of her
money and her property, or its pre-
ceeds, was gift of them by her 70 her
husband and not loan. '-e
Wnere the husband CONVEYS his nron.
efty to his wife, the presumption Of law
10 mat the conveyance was voluntary
made upon valuable considera tIon ,ests
upon those claiming under 1t.
with reference to the money stato,7 q,
me deed to be due by NcConyille RI bis
wlle on account of the collection by hi,
OF the debt due by James TIenderson
the case is different. The proof shows
mat this debt was secured on Henf,er.
son property to McConville as trustee
ior mis- wife. True, 1t does not annear
3ust what were the terms Of this trust
put It being due to McConville as trns.
zee LOT ms wife, he alone could collect
~ ana did collect 1t. and the mere fact
lnat MS wife was present when the
money was received by him, in order
{ that she might unite with her h,,shors
In releasing the deed of trust sec,rina
IT, does not divest the fund of it's tr,,af
feature. McConvllle having received ~
as trustee for her. 1t is not Incumbent
upon her to prove a promise or agree.