Cunningham v. Gray

• Decision Date: 31 October 1854
• Citation: 20 Mo. 170
• Parties: CUNNINGHAM, Appellant, v. GRAY, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

20 Mo. 170

CUNNINGHAM, Appellant,

v.GRAY, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1854.

1. The act of March 5, 1849, exempting certain property of wives from the debts of their husbands, only applies where the debts are contracted after the passage of the act and before the wife comes into possession of the property.

Appeal from St.Louis Court of Common Pleas.

This was an action brought by Cunningham to obtain the legal title and the possession of a lot of ground in the city of St. Louis, which he claimed under a sheriff's deed, by purchase at a sale under an execution against William T. Gray, upon a judgment rendered February 6, 1850. The record did not show at what time the debt accrued, upon which this judgment was founded. The lot was, by William G. Wright and wife, conveyed to Joseph B. Holland, by deed dated January 8th, 1851, in trust for the sole use of the wife of Gray. The plaintiff, claiming that the lot was purchased with the money of Gray, and that the title was made to his wife's trustee to defraud his creditors, brings this suit, making Gray and wife and her trustee, defendants.

At the trial, it was in evidence that the father of Mrs. Gray died in 1833, and by his last will devised to her a female slave, which was in the possession of Gray and wife as early as 1840. It was also in evidence that the mother of Mrs. Gray, about the year 1840, gave her, in money, the sum of $300, and at a later period, $100, and also that, before her death, which took place in January, 1849, she bought a slave for Mrs. Gray. There was evidence tending to show that the lot in controversy was purchased with money arising from the sale of these two slaves, after they had come into the possession of Gray. The court below gave several instructions, the third of which, upon which the case is made to turn, is set out in the opinion of Judge Ryland. There being a verdict and judgment for the defendants below, the plaintiff appealed to this court.

T. B. Hudson, for appellant.

Krum & Harding, for respondent.

RYLAND, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The questions in this case ariseupon the instructions given by the court below. These instructions involve the construction of a statute of our State, passed by the legislature, and approved 5th March, 1849, which took effect from its passage. It is entitled “An act to amend an act entitled “An act to regulate executions.” The provisions of this act, so far as it is necessary to notice them in this case, are as follows:

§ 1. “In addition to the property now exempt from levy and sale under execution, by the tenth, eleventh and twelfth sections of the act of which this is amendatory, the property owned by a woman before her marriage, and that which she may acquire after her marriage, by descent, gift, grant, devise or otherwise, and the use and profits thereof shall be exempt from all debts and liabilities of her husband contracted, or incurred by him previous to their marriage, or previous to the time the wife came into the possession of such property.”

1. This statute cannot have any operation upon debts contracted before its passage. It must operate from its date prospectively. Debts contracted before its passage, and property liable to be sold for these debts before its passage, remain unaffected by it. The constitution of the State prohibits the legislature from passing any “law impairing the obligation of contracts...