The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1906-06-20
INTERESTING CASE, INVOLVING MANY NICE POINTS OF
LAW, TRIED IN THE PROBATE COURT
Widow Cannot Hold Husbands Estate Liza
BILE for Rents Allowed to Accumulate
and Remain in His Hands, or Which
was Spent in Support Of the Family.


OGE IL. ~. HlLL.
of land, this was abundantly shown
by the testimony of others.
1t seems that Mr.. Haddon wanted to
raise some money, and had placed q
tract of land in tho hands Of Mr.. r. S.
Link, a real estate agent, for sale. Mr..
Link could not find purchaser for
this particular tract of land, but found
party in the person of H. r. Craw-
ford, who wished to buy q portion of
the Ellis tract, which, however, he
had no authority to sell.
MIR. Crawford, it seems, went to gee
Mr.. Haddon and made q trade with
him for q certain portion Of the Ellis
tract for which he agreed 10 pay one
thousand dollars.
AS this land belonged to Mrs. Had
don, of course, it was necessary that
she execute the titles, and al an in
ducement for her to do so, Mr.. Haddon
agreed TO give her a thousand dollars
worth of land TO be taken from the
Wilson tract-which he never did.
On this point J. X. Carwile testified
that MIR. haddon told him that be ex-
pected to run off one hundred acres Of
land from the Wilson tract for Mrs.
Haddon in payment Tor the land that
he had sold OF hers to Mr.. Crawford.
Lou Liddell testified that he lived
with MIR. Haddon for fifteen years !;
lived on the Ellis place; that he knew
when the Ellis place was sold; that
MIR. Haddon said to him on a certain
occasion that he had given to Mrs.
Haddon the upper part of the Wilson
place for the portion of the Ellis place
which he had sold to Mr.. Crawford,
and that if he (LiddelD wanted TO re-
main with him he would have to move
over there.
The testimony of R. S. Link was
strongly corroborative of the testi-
mony of Carwile and Liddell.
AS against the presumption of a gift
by Mrs. Haddon to her husband of this
money-a presumption based solely
upon the fact that she permitted him
to collect the same and retain and use
it as his own for few months, as he
died in q little over; six months after
having received the money, is placed
this array of undisputed evidence.
Not only does 1t show that Mrs.
Haddon did NOT intend to give this
money to her husband, but that the
husband himself did not 80 regard 1t.
1t is not case of long acquicscence
on the part of wife in the use by her
husband, of her individual property,
from which gift might be Inferred
for as has been before stated, Mr.. Had.
don died in little over six months af.
ter having received the money.
I, therefore, hold that even though
there had been no proof to show that
Mr.. Haddon was to reimburse Mrs.
Haddon, or repay her in other lands
for that which be had sold of hers and
induced her to execute titles to the
purchaser, and for which he received
the money, bis estate would be bound
to account to her for it.
The mere possession of moneys be-
longing to the wife by the husband,
even with her acquiescence, is no suffi-
cient evidence of gift by her to him
In support of this view, would call
attention to the case of Oliver VS..
Chance, South Eastern Rept. Vol. II,
page 657, wherein the Court say
when the wife has separate estate
and the husband takes possession of it,
he becomes her general agent, and az
such is accountable to her for the
same"
In DeLoach VS.. Sarratt, Vol. 80 OF
same Report, the same principle IL
laid down. In that case it appears
that A. A. Sarratt sold a tract of land
belonging to his wife for which he re.
hn
for several years in his own business,
treating it as his own. During this
time he purchased large tract OF land
and gave mortgage on it to secure
the credit portion of the purchase
price-defaulting IN his payments, the
mortgage was foreclosed, and the land
sold, being subdivided into several
tracts for that purpose.
| One of these tracts was bought by
Mrs. Sarratt and titles made to her.
On this purchase Mr.. Sarralt paid, fol
his wife, So, 1000. 90, claiming that it was
the $2,0OO0O which he had received
for the tract of land of hers which he
had previously sold.
AS the land sold under the foreclos.
ure proceedings as before stated, failed
| W UIluS CuouSh W ootiolS tbS 1hei v
gage debt, judgment was entered uI
against the morl rlgagor, the said A. A.
Sarratt, for the amount of the def
cheney.
The Judgment creditor brought suit
for the recovery of this $2,0O0.0O paid
by Sarratt on his wife's purchase, al
leging that it was the husbands mon
ey, and, therefore, should be applied
to the judgment against him. In this
case the Court say: "When A. A
Sarratt received this $2,0 900 as purchase
money he held the same for his wife
there being no proof of gift to hin.
of that money by his wife, and il
made no difference where he placed it
whether as deposit in bank, or as
loan to other parties, or in the pur
chase of other property-as between
himself and his wife, it was her prop
erty."
In Stickney vs.. Stickney, U. S. Su
preme Court Reports, Vol. 33, pag'
l43, the Court say: "We think tina
whenever the husband acquires posses
sion of the separate property of hi