Burging v. McDowell
| Decision Date | 18 April 1878 |
| Citation | 71 Va. 236 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | BURGING v. MCDOWELL & als. |
A bill filed for the reformation of a deed of marriage settlement prayed that the deed might be so corrected as to secure the property to the married woman, free from the marital rights of her husband, " as if she were a feme sole, and with power to dispose of the same by a writing in the nature of a deed or will; " and all parties interested by their answers, concurred in the prayer of the bill; and the decree directed that the property should be, and was secured to the said married woman, " as fully and completely as if she were a feme sole, free from the debts of her husband, and in no manner liable for his debts or contracts" --HELD: That the court might look to the bill and answers for the purpose of ascertaining the proper construction of the decree; and that the decree when so construed operated to confer upon the married woman power to dispose by her sole act of the real estate settled upon her.
The case is stated in the opinion of Judge Christian.
E Y. Cannon, for the appellant.
There was no counsel for the appellees.
This is an appeal from a decree of the chancery court of the city of Richmond. The facts shown by the record, material to be noticed, are as follows: Margaret Sternan intermarried with Christian J. Stockmar in the year 1857. She was then the owner in fee simple of certain real estate, derived under her former husband's will, she being the widow of Charles Sternan at the time of her intermarriage with Stockmar. There was a marriage contract between the parties, executed before the marriage, and bearing date February 24th, 1857.
On the 1st day of August, 1859, a bill was filed in the county court of Henrico by the husband, Christian J. Stockmar, asking for a construction of the deed of marriage settlement. That bill contains the following allegation, after referring to said deed of marriage settlement:
" At the time said deed was prepared it was the intention of your orator and of his wife, said Anna Margaret that the land and other property of said Anna should be secured to her, and the land and other property of your orator should be secured to him, but by mistake of the draftsman the deed was drawn as appears by the copy above."
The bill further declares as follows:
" Your orator and his said wife, and said Henry Stockmar, and William Hebel and Emilie his wife, each desire that all of the property which said Anna Margaget held at the time of her marriage, as well as any she may hereafter acquire, shall be settled upon the said Anna Margaret as her absolute property, free from any claim on the part of her husband, and with power to said Anna Margaret to dispose of the same as she may desire, either by a writing executed as a deed or will; and that all of the property belonging to your orator at the date of his marriage, and any acquired since, or which may be hereafter acquired, shall be secured to your orator, free from all claim on the part of his said wife and of any other party to this bill; it being the intention of the parties to said marriage contract, at the time it was executed, that each of the parties thereto should have no interest in the property of the other, whether then owned or thereafter acquired."
And then the prayer of the bill is that the court shall enter a decree correcting the mistake in said deed, and securing the property belonging to said Anna Margaret at the date of said deed, or since acquired, or which may be hereafter acquired, to said Anna Margaret, as if she were a feme sole, and with power to dispose of the same by a writing in the nature of a deed or will, and in like manner to secure to your orator all property to him at the date of said deed, or which has been or may be since acquired, as completely and fully as if he had never been married, and to grant him such other and further relief as may be consistent with equity and the nature of the case may require.
To this bill all the defendants, the parties interested, to-wit: the wife of the plaintiff, Anna Margaret Stockmar, Henry Stockmar, son of plaintiff, and Eliza his wife, Henry Hebel, son of Mrs. Stockmar, and Emilie his wife, answered the bill by joint and separate answer, in which they say that the statements contained in said bill are true; that they desire the property of the plaintiff and of Anna Margaret Stockmar settled on them respectively, and ask that the prayer thereof be granted.
Appended to this answer was the following certificate of a notary public:
" City of Richmond, to-wit:
I, Henry G. Cannon, a notary public in and for the city aforesaid, in the state of Virginia, do certify that Anna Margaret Stockmar, the wife of Christian Jacob Stockmar, and Emilie Hebel, the wife of Wilhelm Hebel, and Eliza Stockmar, the wife of Henry Stockmar, each personally appeared before me, in my said city, and made oath that the statements contained in the answer hereto annexed are true to the best of their knowledge and belief, and the said Anna Margaret, Emilie and Eliza being examined by me privily and apart from their said husbands, and having said answers fully explained to them, acknowledged that they had willingly signed and executed the same, and did not wish to retract it, and desired that the prayer of the bill referred to herein should be granted.
Given under my hand this 27th day of July, 1859.
On the same day on which this bill and answer was filed, to-wit: on the 1st day of August, 1859, the court entered the following decree:
The record further shows that on the 28th February, 1863, Mrs Margaret Stockmar (who had separated from her husband, Christian Stockmar, and assumed the name of Sternan, which was her name before she intermarried with Stockmar), conveyed by deed to Burging a piece or parcel of land lying in the county of Henrico, for...
To continue reading
Request your trial