| Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 577 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
INDEX. 577 HUSBAND AND WIFE. 1. Where the aid of a Court of Equity is necessary to enable the husband to obtain possession of the wife's personal estate, he must do what is equi- table, by making tt suitable provision out of it for her maintenance and that of her children. McVey vs. Boggs, 94 1. This principle applies to the assignee, for value, of the husband, to the case of transfers by operation of law, or by the act of the husband, to general assignees for the benefit of creditors. Ib. 3. The amount of the provision to be made to the wife in every case must be governed by its peculiar circumstances, and, according to those circum- stances, the Court may give to her the whole or only a part of the pro- perty. Ib. 4. In this case, the husband, though living with the wife, was bankrupt; they were destitute, having no property, except the wife's share of the pro- ceeds in this cause, amounting to $919 06, and had a large number of children, most of them very young and helpless, to support. The Chan- cellor decreed the whole sum to be settled upon the wife. Ib. 5. Where the husband neither reduces the chases in, action of the wife into possession during coverture, nor during his life in case he survives her, they devolve at his death upon her representatives. Gough vs. Crane, 119. 6. The Act of 1798, ch. 101, sub. ch. 5, sec. 8, changes in this respect the English statute of distributions, which gives to the representatives of the husband who survives his wife, chases in action not reduced to posses- sion, to the exclusion of the representatives of the wife. it. 7. If the husband reduces the chases m action of his wife into possession during his lifetime, or recovers judgment upon them at law or in equity, either in his own favor or in favor of himself and his wife, and he survives her, and subsequently dies, they devolve upon his representatives, lh. 8. Though a husband cannot by will deprive his wife other share of his per- sonal estate, yet he has the power to dispose absolutely of such property during his life by Bale or gift, and if he reserves no right to himself, the transfer will prevail against the wife, though made to defeat her claim. Dunnock vs. Dunnock, 140. 9. But if the conveyance or transfer be a mere device or contrivance by which the husband, not parting with the absolute dominion over the property during his life, seeks at his death to deprive his widow of her share of his personalty, it will be ineffectual against her. Ib. 10. A conveyance of personal property by a husband which would be good against the claim of the wife in case she survived him, is also good against her claim for a living during their separation. 11. A voluntary conveyance by a woman in contemplation of marriage, is avoidable by the husband, from whom it was concealed, or who had no notice of it, as in derogation of his marital rights, and a fraud upon his just expectations. Cole vs. O'Neil, 174. 13. But it is indispensably necessary to the successful impeachment of such a deed, that the husband should be kept in ignorance of it, up to the mo- ment of the marriage, and even if ha be so kept in ignorance, it will de- pend upon circumstances whether it be valid or not; the question in alt such cases is, whether the evidence is sufficient to raise fraud. Ib. 13. If it appears that the conveyance was made during the treaty and in con- |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 577 View pdf image (33K) |
|
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.
Maryland State Archives