18 D.C. 85 (D.C.D.C. 1888), 10,833, Hinds v. Hinds

Docket Nº:In Equity. 10,833.
Citation:18 D.C. 85
Opinion Judge:Mr. Chief Justice BINGHAM.
Party Name:MARY HINDS v. WARREN L. HINDS.
Attorney:Messrs. WM. A. COOK and C. C. COLE for plaintiff. Mr. FRANKLIN H. MACKEY for defendant.
Case Date:December 10, 1888
Court:Supreme Court of District of Columbia
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 85

18 D.C. 85 (D.C.D.C. 1888)

MARY HINDS

v.

WARREN L. HINDS.

In Equity. No. 10,833.

Supreme Court, District of Columbia.

December 10, 1888

1. A purchase of real estate with the joint means of husband and wife, and the placing of it in the wife's name imply a settlement by the husband upon his wife of the property to every extent that the consideration came from him, and the court will not, upon a divorce being granted the wife, disturb such a settlement, when voluntarily and fairly made before the cause of action arose on which the divorce was granted.

2. Jackson vs. Jackson, 1 Mac A., 34, explained and distinguished.

APPEAL from a decree of divorce.

THE FACTS are stated in the opinion.

Messrs. WM. A. COOK and C. C. COLE for plaintiff.

Mr. FRANKLIN H. MACKEY for defendant.

OPINION

Mr. Chief Justice BINGHAM.

Mary Hinds filed her petition in the Equity Court against her husband, Warren L. Hinds, in which she sets out several matters as grounds for a divorce. Upon hearing in the Special Term and in this court only one ground was insisted upon, namely, willful abandonment.

The defendant answered her petition, denying quite generally the matters therein set forth. He also filed a cross-bill against the complainant, alleging adultery and praying a divorce from her for that reason.

This court, upon the hearing of the case, after the testimony had been introduced by the parties, respectively, relating to the grounds of divorce, announced to counsel that in its judgment the cross-bill of the defendant should be dismissed so far as it prayed for a divorce, and that the complainant should be granted a divorce upon the ground of willful abandonment. It was thereupon insisted by counsel for the defendant that the court should nevertheless hear testimony relating to the property rights set out in the pleadings, and the court accordingly did hear the testimony relating to the property of the parties, and upon the consideration of the whole case we are now prepared to announce our conclusions.

It appears that after these parties were married a purchase of a lot in this city was made, and the same conveyed to the wife. On this lot a house was constructed. It is claimed by counsel for the defendant that the lot and the cost of the house were paid for out of the joint earnings of husband and wife. This is denied...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP