Case Name: Richards vs. Richards et als.
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1850-12
Citations: 11 Hum. 429
Docket Number: 
Parties: Richards vs. Richards et als.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 30
Pages: 429–430

Head Matter:
Richards vs. Richards et als.
1. The act of 1784, ch. 22, sec. 8, declares that all conveyances made to children or others with intent to defraud the widow of dower are void j but no such protection is given to her in respect to the personal estate. She cannot allege the fraud of the intes. tate in the sale or gift of his personal estate any more than the distributee or personal representative.
2. A widow is not entitled in the drstribution of her husband’s estate to have the advancements made to the children collated for her benefit. She is only entitled to a share of what remains, excluding the advancements.
This bill was filed in the chancery court at Nashville. Decree by the presiding chancellor, Cahal, for the complainant.
Defendants appealed.
Jones and McEwen, for the complainant.
Willliams and Goodlett, for the defendants.

Opinion:
McKinney, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The complainant is the widow of Henry Richards, who died intestate. She was allowed by the county court $150 00, for her year's support, which remains unpaid; and this bill was brought to obtain satisfaction of. said allowance out of a debt due from the estate of George H. Burton, which, as she alleges, rightfully belongs to the estate of her deceased husband ; there being no other fund for the satisfaction of the same.
It appears that on the 12th of April, 1846, said Burton was indebted to said Henry Richards in the sum of $300, for money loaned and advanced by the latter to the former; and on that day, Richards procured Burton to execute his note for said sum of money, payable to the defendants E. D" Richards and Mary Mills, who are the children of said Henry Richards. The defendants allege, that said note was taken payable to them, not for any fraudulent purpose, but in discharge of the indebtedness of their father to them. How the truth of this allegation may be, it is not material to inquire; for if wholly untrue, as complainant alleges, the result of the case would not be varied. The right of the widow, in respect to. the personal estate of her deceased husband, stands upon very different ground, from her right to dower. By positive law, the latter right is protected against the fraud of the husband. The act of 1784, ch. 22, sec. 8, declares all conveyances made to children, or others, with the intent to defeat the widow of dower, utterly void; and that she shall have her dower in the lands so conveyed, as if no such conveyance had been made. But no such protection is given in respect to the personal estate. Upon well settled principles, the widow is precluded, just as much as the personal representative or distributees, from alleging the fraud of the intestate in the sale, conveyance, or gift of his personal estate; or calling in question any disposition which he may have thought proper to make of it; as against her and them, he has the right, in law, to make whatever disposition he pleases ; only those standing in the relation of creditors or bona fide purchasers can question such right. The widow is not even entitled, upon the distribution of her husband's estate, to have the advancements made by him to his children, in his life time, collated for her benefit; she is only entitled to a share of what remains, exclusive of such advancements; Meigs R. 630.
It follows that, assuming the execution of the note for $300, to the defendants to have been without consideration, and for the purpose of excluding the widow from any share thereof, the complainant is without remedy.
The decree will be reversed.