Coatney v. Hopkins
| Decision Date | 14 December 1878 |
| Citation | 14 W.Va. 338 |
| Parties | COATNEY, ADM'R v. HOPKINS et al. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
1. At common law the husband jure mariti is entitled absolutely to all of his wife's personal property, which shall come into his possession, unless his right thereto is restrained by the deed of the wife before the marriage, or by the instrument that confers the property upon her.
2. A deed of marriage settlement may be so framed, as to deprive the husband of all his marital rights; but he will never be deprived of them to a greater extent, than the terms of the deed clearly require.
3. And when his rights are restrained by such deed only during the life of the wife, at her death he is entitled to all the personal estate embraced in the settlement, subject only to the payment of debts for which it was bound, if any such there were, funeral expenses and charges of administration.
4. Courts of equity will not deprive the husband of his rights at law, by virtue of the marriage, unless there appears to be a clear intention manifested in the instrument, relied upon to create the separate estate, to exclude him.
5. To constitute a separate estate in a married woman by an instrument, such as a deed, & c., no technical language is necessary; but it must appear unequivocally on the face of the instrument to the satisfaction of the court, that the intention was to exclude the husband.
6. The intention of the parties to a marriage settlement is to be collected from the nature of the agreement, the language and context thereof, the usage in similar cases, and the legal rights of the parties, as they existed before, and would have existed after the marriage, if no such settlement had been made.
7. A deed of marriage settlement, contains the following language after specifying the property, which is personal property " Upon trust, that the trustee (naming him) will permit the said D. H. A. during the joint lives of himself and the said L., his intended wife, to receive and take the said property, debts, legacies and money (except $500.00, a portion of the amount due said L. from the estate of John Hopkins, deceased, also her female slave and her increase and said L.'s beds and bedding, for the joint use of the said D. H. A. and L.; the money and property above excepted to be held in trust for the said L. " HELD:
That the deed created a separate estate in said L. as to the excepted property.
8. As to her sole and separate personal property the wife may dispose of the same, as if she were a feme sole; and this she may do without the assent of the trustee.
Appeal from a decree of the circuit court of Pendleton county pronounced on the 11th day of December, 1869, in a cause in said court then pending, wherein Edwin J. Coatney administrator of the estate of Daniel H. Armentrout deceased, was plaintiff, and Cyrus Hopkins and others were defendants, allowed on the petition of said Coatney.
Hon. J. T. Hoke, late judge of the fourth judicial circuit, pronounced the decree appealed from.
JOHNSON, JUDGE, furnishes the following statement of the case:
On the 16th day of June, 1842, John Hopkins, of Pendleton county, made his last will and testament, in which he made certain provisions for his daughter Lucinda. The clauses of his will in which such provisions are contained are as follows:
" I also direct my son, Cyrus, do pay to my daughter, Lucinda Hopkins, $2,000.00, to be paid as follows: $500.00 eleven years after my decease, and $500.00 annually thereafter until it is all paid.
I also direct that my son, Cyrus, do keep and maintain in a decent manner my daughter, Lucinda, during the term of eleven years after my decease, and that if daughter Lucinda should want small sums of money, say twenty dollars a year, son Cyrus is to pay the same to her, and the amount thus paid, is to be taken out of her first payment, directed to be paid by son Cyrus. If my son, Cyrus, does pay or cause to be paid to the heirs of my deceased son, Thomas Hopkins the amount hereinbefore directed and also $2,000.00 to daughter Lucinda Hopkins, or her heirs as before directed, and keep and maintain daughter Lucinda as before directed, then I will and bequeath to my son, Cyrus Hopkins, and his heirs my home plantation with its appurtenances forever. If son Cyrus fails to pay to the heirs of my deceased son, Thomas, and my daughter, Lucinda, or her heirs, the several sums of money hereinbefore directed to be paid, then at the expiration of ten years after my decease, I direct that my said home plantation be sold by my executor, hereinafter named, and out of the proceeds of said sale, the heirs of my deceased son, Thomas Hopkins, to be paid the amount hereinbefore directed, and that $2,000.00 be paid by my executor to daughter Lucinda as hereinbefore directed. * * * *
If my wife should die before my decease, I direct all the personal property willed to her to be sold by my executor, and the proceeds to be equally divided between all my children, share and share alike, except two female negro slaves, Ruhanna and Abigail, which two negro slaves I give and bequeath to my daughter Lucinda.
I also give and bequeath to my daughter, Lucinda, all the household and kitchen furniture she claims at this time, I direct my son Cyrus to keep one horse beast for daughter Lucinda, for ten years after my decease; and I also will daughter Lucinda the big room up stairs during the term of ten years after my decease."
The will of John Hopkins was admitted to probate on the 4th day of October, 1842.
In March, 1856, the said Lucinda, in contemplation of marriage with one Daniel H. Armentrout, made a deed to A. W. Dyer trustee, the preamble of which sets out the intended marriage and the fact that she has certain property, describing it, and says:
The deed is signed and acknowledged by Lucinda Hopkins, Armentrout and Dyer, the trustee.
At February Rules, 1860, of the circuit court of Pendleton county, the said Daniel H. Armentrout filed his bill in chancery alleging, the provisions of the will above set forth, also the deed of settlement, his marriage on the 12th day of April, 1857, with said Lucinda Hopkins; that in May, 1844, the widow of John Hopkins died, and that ever since that time Cyrus Hopkins had been in possession of the upper tract or home plantation of John Hopkins, bequeathed to him by the will of his father, subject to the legacies charged thereon; that there was no provision made by the terms of the antenuptial deed for the disposition of the property of Lucinda, in the event the plaintiff survived his late wife, Lucinda, who died on the 11th day of July, 1858, intestate, and without issue; that plaintiff qualified as the administrator of her estate; that as his late wife died intestate and without issue, under the law of the land and the facts of the case he is entitled to recover and hold the whole of his late wife's personal estate absolutely: 1st. because he survived her, and 2d. because of his marital rights.
He charges that said Dyer never acted as trustee under said deed. He says, he believes that a small part of the said $2,000.00 legacy in favor of said Lucinda was paid to her by said Cyrus before the marriage, but how much he is not advised; that he came into possession of a bond executed by said Cyrus for $500.00, which bond he believes was executed for a part of said $2,000.00 legacy; that he assigned this bond to a certain Dr. Moore, which if paid, he thinks ought to be applied as a credit on said $2,000.00 legacy. He charges that there were in his possession for a considerable time before the death of his said late...
To continue reading
Request your trial