Year: 1869

An important decision has recently been made by
the Supreme Court through Judge Agnew, on an
appeal from the Orphans Court of Philadelphia


Joseph M. Davis claims q conveyance to certain
real estate on the ground that he is the owner, by
purchase The fact Of purchase does not change t
the nature of the investment, that is fixed by the
law itself authorizing the investment The question
before us is upon the title to the succession, not the
nature of the subject of investment. This must
depend on the law. The Act of 1882 had provided
for investments in certain stocks and In real
rites" The Act OF 18th April, 1854, enlarged the
subjects of investment by extending them to ground
rents and other real estate. 1t provides as foows:
sit shall be lawful for any trustee, committee or
guardian, to invest money in ground rents or other
real estate by leave of the proper court under pro-
ceedings provided in the act to which this is q
supplement-" So far the law authorizes the pur-
chase OF real estate, and protects the guardian:
the ward, it proceeds :-"Provded that it shall be
the opinion of the Court that such investment will
be for the advantage Of the estate; and no change
be made in the course Of succession by such changes
of investment regards the heirs or next of kin of
the ceStui que trust" Thus the ownership OF the
fund is protected and its succession regulated not
withstandng the subject of investment be real
estate.


The whole transaction as proved is, that marriage
was in contemplation, that the parties Mrs. Wood
ward, her daughter and Mr.. Davis, made an
arrangement for the purchase OF the house, and ap-
Piled to the Witness the executor of Mr.. Kitchen,
from whose estate the funds were to come, for the
money to pay for the house, and that Mrs. Wood
ward went into the Orphans Court and obtained an
authority to make the investment. Now what did
this settle? A marriage settlement must settle



Was there settlement by Mr. Davis of the property
on Miss Kitchen, to herself and her heirs, or was it
settlement by Miss Kitchen on herself and with his
consent? There Is not word of truth on this point
There is evidence of the purchase OF
the property by common CONSENT and,
no doubt, for the purpose OF pro
yidng home for the young couple when they
should be married, but what evidence is there OF
conversion of the fund from personality into realty,
and OF agreement to discharge the guardian from
liability under the decree of the Orphans Cosrt?
Clearly, there is not particle. TO bind Davis, by
settlement of the property as realty on his wife,
clearly his assent must have been given to change
in the succession by the conversion OF the fund to his
prejudice. The parol evidence shows no such agree
ment and still less does the deed; that exhibits no
trust whatever for Miss Kitchen The deed is made
TO Mrs Woodward herself and discloses no trust. Ii
it were not for her description guardian the
deed would not even indicate the source
from which the purchase money came. But
to the conversion of the sum paid on the property
by Mrs. woodward there is positively no proof what
ever that he consented that the mortgage charged
the property should not be paid out of the per-
sonal estate after it had actually vested in him
Woodwards Appeal, 2 Wright decides that this
money was rightfully taken from the estate to pro-
tect the guardian against the mortgage That could
be justified only on the ground that She had right
fully invested the former money in the purchase.
As an investment this does no harm, and changes
no ones rights. Davis, being entitled to the money,
cannot follow II into the property because of a con
version Of the fund and change In the succession,
it can only be on the ground that he has consented
to the conversion and to change the right of
sion into inheritance by descent and OF this there is
no evidence whatever.