Case Name: Greenhow v. Coutts et al.
Court: Superior Court of Chancery of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1810-02
Citations: 4 Hen. & M. 485
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Greenhow v. Coutts et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 958–958

Head Matter:
*Greenhow v. Coutts et al.
February Term, 1810.
Marriage Settlements — Effect as to Creditors Where Parties Have Lived in a State of Fornication. — A marriage settlement on a wife with whom the husband bad long lived in a state of fornication, and by whom he had several children, will be deemed not to have been on valuable consideration, but voluntary and fraudulent as to creditors.
On the 29th August, 1799, Reuben Coutts executed three notes, under seal, to Hicks and Campbell, for 1541. 8s. 4d. each, with interest, payable on the 1st day of September, 1800, 1801, and 1802, in which he bound his heirs. On the same day, these notes were assigned to George Greenhow, with an express liability, by the assignors, in case of Coutts’ insolvency; and in May, 1802, and March, 1803, judgments were obtained, upon them, against Coutts; and in July, 1806, these judgments were transferred to Dr. James Greenhow. On the 29th August, 1799, Coutts made a mortgage for some Kentucky lands, to George Greenhow, to secure the payment of those notes; and it was agreed that he might sue at law, or in equity, but not in the latter, until after the 29th September, 1804. On the 10th September, 1799, Coutts made a marriage settlement upon a woman, with whom he had tong lived in a 'state of fornication, and by whom he had several children, for, and in consideration of their intended marriage, which was celebrated about the 17th of the ■same month. By the settlement, Coutts conveyed the whole of his estate; 1st. Ror •the use of himself, until the marriage; 2d. Ror the joint use of both, and for their •children; 3d. If he survived her, for his support out of the rents and profits; 4th. If she survived him, for the payment to her, annually, of 1501. for her life, in lieu of her •dower; and, 5th. On the death of both, to be divided, as directed by the articles, among the children of the marriage. After this Coutts made his will, and confirmed all the provisions of the marriage articles, and then devised a small real estate to his wife and her heirs, and all the rest of his estate he devised to his children, appointed executors, and died. Under these circumstances, the bill, in this case, was brought to set aside the marriage articles, as being voluntary, and fraudulent as to creditors, and to be let in *for a satisfaction of the judgments at law, out of the real and personal estate of the said Coutts. To this it was objected, 1st. That the marriage articles were entered into for a valuable consideration; and 2d. That the mortgaged lands had been lost by the negligence of the mortgagee, by the non-payment of taxes; and, therefore, he should be accountable for the value of the lands. These points were argued, and submitted.
Harriage Settlements — Effect as to Creditors Where Parties Have Lived in a State of Fornication. — On this question, the principal case is citea in Herring v. Wickham, 29 Gratt. 642, 645, 647, 648. See foot-note to same case. See monographic note on "Fraudulent and Voluntary Conveyances” appended .to Cochran v. Paris, 11 Gratt. 348.

Opinion:
By the Chancellor.
There can be no doubt but marriage, for the benefit of society, is a good consideration, where there is any personal inducement to it, but where there is not, it should not, of itself, be deemed a good consideration against creditors; and more especially in the present case, where the parties lived in open violation of the laws, and to the evil example of the whole community. Would it not be monstrous to say, that Coutts, who was really an old man, far beyond the prime of his life, after so many years spent with a woman in a state of fornication, should be allowed to avoid the payment of his debts, by entering into a marriage contract with her? What was the inducement to it but to avoid,his creditors? Attend to the circumstances: on the 29th of August, 1799, the debts were contracted; on the 10th September following, a marriage settlement was entered into; and, on or about the 17th of the same month, the marriage was actually celebrated; the consideration of which, was the settlement of all his estate for the purpose above mentioned, and the children of the marriage, all of whom were born before, and not afterwards. The case is too palpable, and the cases relied on, do not ap ply. Every aspect of the record shows that Coutts had increased his estate, at least, to the amount of these judgments, with a clear intention not to pay them; and, although the agreement may be good as between the parties, yet, as to creditors, it is void.
As to the mortgage subject: it was the duty of Coutts to pay the taxes; so that it was his, and not Greenhow's neglect that the land was lost.
*The decree may be:
1.That the marriage articles are to be considered void as to creditors.
2. That the executors settle their accounts of administration. And,
3. That the legatees render an account of the personal estate received by each.