clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search		 search for:
clear space
white space
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 184   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

184 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
charged from the claim of any husband she might thereafter
have, and without being bound for the payment of his debts,
&c., with power to her to receive the rents and profits, without
being bound or liable as aforesaid; and in further truat, to
permit and suffer her to dispose of the property absolutely at
any time she may see fit to do so, which power is expressly
reserved to her, as is also the power to devise the same by
last will and testament; and upon the further trust that in the
event of no such disposition by her in either way, Cole, the
trustee, his executors, &c., should hold the property in trust
for the heirs of the said Catharine Drake, who would have
been entitled to receive the same, had these presents been exe-
cuted to the said Catharine Drake, her executors, &c.
As this deed expressly protects the property -against any
husband Mrs. Drake might thereafter have, it is not denied
that it applies to the defendant, O'Neill, and that during her
coverture with him, the property was subject to the trusts of
the deed. This being so, as it unquestionably is, how is it
possible to say that the deed from Catharine Drake to Cole, of
the 17th of April, 1843, is a fraud upon the marital rights of
O'Neill?
By the deed from Peters to her, of March, 1843, the pro-
perty was settled to her separate use, with the absolute power
of disposition by deed or will, and as O'Neill married her with
the property so circumstanced, he ia to be regarded as adopt-
ing it in that state, and bound in equity not to disturb it.
She could then clearly, even during her coverture with
O'Neill, have disposed of the trust property, either by deed or
will, without his concurrence or knowledge; and surely, if she
could do so after the marriage, there can be no principle which
would restrain her from executing a similar power prior to the
marriage.
How can O'Neill, the husband, say that he had a right to
be consulted, or to interpose any objection to the deed to Cole,
executed prior to the marriage, when after the marriage, his
wife might have disposed of the property entirely irrespective
of his consent ?

  		clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 184   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!

An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives