The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1906-06-20

wife, whether with or without her
consent, he must be deemed to hold it
in trust for her benefit, in the absence
of any direct evidence that she intend
ed to make gift of it to him." And,
further, "There is no presumption of
gift by wife to husband, there must be
proof"
AS still further bearing out this view
of the case, I might quote from Far
mer vs. Farmer, 80 n. J. Eq.. page
2l1; Jennings vs.. Davis, 81 Conn,
page 1873; also Doty VS.. Wilson, Al N.
Y, page $50, and numerous other
cases.
AS to the point made by the attor-
ney for the residuary legatees, that
$500 90 of the $1,O00.00, received by
Mr.. Haddon, having been applied tc
satisfying the mortgage on the Ellis
tract al least to that extent, the estate
of Haddon cannot be held to account,
1 have this to say: The debt, to Sc
cure which this mortgage was given,
was debt for which Mr.. Haddon was
primarily responsible, and that at
most the lands Of Mrs. Haddon stood
merely as security for its payment,
and that, unless the estate of Haddon
was insolvent, neither the lands nor
the moneys of Mrs. HaGdon should be
taken to pay said debt without the es.
tate of Haddon teing required to re-
pay it.
Now as regards the claim of Mrs.
Haddon for the rents collected by her
husband, from the tenants who rented
her lands, I am disposed to take q
somewhat different view as to his ac-
countability therefor, from that held in
reference to the claim just passed up
on, and while am not fully satisfied
that the estate of Haddon should not
be held responsible for the same, I
have concluded to give the estate the
benefit of the doubt which fingers In
my mind.
The business of this claim does not
strike me with the force that the other
did, for the reason that in this case
Mrs. Haddon suffered her husband to
collect the rents from year to year ex-
tending back for period Of ten years
to use the money as his own, doubtless
for her benefit as well ss that of him.
self, without any protest or objection
on her part.
From all the circumstances of this
case, 7 have come to the conclusion
that in all probability Mrs. Haddon at
no time prior to the death of her hus-
band ever entertained a thought of
holding him or his estate responsible
for these rents-neither do I think
that it ever occurred to Mr.. Haddon
that he was expected, or would be ex-
pected to account for the same-there-
in differing materially from the condi-
ton Of affairs as regards the money re-
ceived by him for the land sold OF
hers.
Being aware of the fact that Mr..
Haddon was collecting her rents and
using the same In defraying the gen.
eral expenses of the home, which he
was very likely compelled to do, as the
lands decided to his wife comprised q
large part of bis most valuable lands.
Knowing this, as she testified she did,
and allowing 1t to 60 on for a period OF
from six to ten years without objec-
ton, and in the absence of any cir
cumstance tending to show that she
intended to hold him or his estate re-
sponsible for this money, I am of the
opinion that she is estopped from do
ing go now.
In support of this view of the case,
see the case of Reeder & Davis vs..
Finn. 6 s. g., page 240, wherein the
Court cay: "Where a wife permits
her husband to manage her separate
estate for a number of years and dis.
pose of the income as he sees fit, equity
treats it as a gift to him."
Again. In Coatright vs. Coatright,
So Iowa, page 81, the Court say :
Where husband has used his wife's
money in payment of family expenses
with her consent and without any
agreement to pay her, she cannot re-
cover therefor from her husbands es.
tate"
In the case of Mcclure vs. Lancss-
ter, "a 8. c., page 273, it was held by
his Honor Judge Cothran before
whom the case was tried, "That where
husband and wife live together using
the proceeds of her property as q com.
mon means of support. if she does not
object to that arrangement, be can ap.
pTOpTldtc II dS uc pledsesi dHu W lie
own use-there is no resulting trust,
and after his death the wife cannot re-
cover : it from his estate" In this
opinion his Honor was sustained by
the Supreme Court on appeal.
There are quite number Of other
South Carolina cases in which this
principle Is enunciated which I might
quote from, but do not deem it neces
sary to do 30.
As a conclusion of the matter
hold:
First. That Mrs. E. A. Haddon, tht
claimant, is entitled to recover from
the estate OF her deceased husband, T
l.. Haddon, the sum of one Thousand
dollars Isl, ,O0O.00), being the amoun