Debaun v. Van Wagoner

• Decision Date: 31 March 1874
• Citation: 56 Mo. 347
• Parties: GEORGE DEBAUN, Respondent, v. ADALINE H. VAN WAGONER, et al., Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

56 Mo. 347

GEORGE DEBAUN, Respondent,

v.ADALINE H. VAN WAGONER, et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1874.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

Melville Smith, for Appellants.

It does not appear that appellant intended to bind her separate estate. It clearly appears that she did not.

I. She cannot charge her property, except when the intention so to do is clear and unequivocal, and only then where the contract is for her personal benefit or advantage, or for the benefit or advantage of her separate property. She cannot encumber her separate estate for the debt of another (Kimm vs. Weippert, 46 Mo., 532; Hartman vs. Ogborn 54 Penn. St., 120; Lawrence vs. Finch, 2 Green [N. J.] 234; Smith vs. Allen, 1 Lans. [N. Y.,] 101; Kantrowit vs. Prather, 31 Ind., 92; Yale vs. Dederer, 18 N. Y., 265; 22 N. Y., 450.)

II. The contract must show its purpose and intention. The intent must be a part of the contract, and appear from a just interpretation--parol evidence not competent. (Kimm vs. Weippert, 46 Mo., 532.) The acts and declarations of a married woman in order to charge her separate estate should be clear and unequivocal. (Lawrence vs. Finch, 2 Green [N. J.], 234.)

III. A married woman cannot incumber her separate estate for the debt of another. (Hartman vs. Ogborn, 54 Penn. St., 120; Yale vs. Dederer, 18 N. Y., 265; Kimm vs. Weippert, 46 Mo., 532.)

H. D. Laughlin, with whom was Arba N. Crane, for Respondent, relied upon Coats vs. Robinson, 10 Mo., 757; Miller vs. Brown, 47 Mo., 504

SHERWOOD, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a proceeding in the nature of a bill in equity, to subject the separate estate of a married woman to sale. The petition in substance alleges: That Mrs. Van Wagoner was possessed of certain real estate, situate in the city of St. Louis, to and for her sole use; that John M. Krum was the trustee, in whom was vested, for the exclusive benefit of Mrs. Van Wagoner, the legal title to said estate; that said cestui que trust claimed an interest in certain leasehold property, and, as an inducement to plaintiff to purchase the same, promised in writing that, if he would do so, she would pay the taxes on said last named property for the year 1861, and all years prior thereto; that, relying on such promise, plaintiff made the purchase, but defendant failed and refused to pay said taxes in accordance with her said agreement, and plaintiff in consequence was compelled to pay the taxes for a number of those prior years, inclusive of 1861, on the property thus purchased; that defendant did by her said promise in writing set apart and pledge her separate estate for the payment of the sum which plaintiff had been compelled to pay in satisfaction of such taxes. The petition concludes with a prayer for the subjection of the separate property of the cestui que trust to the payment of the amount so as aforesaid expended, and for other relief.

The defendants demurred to this...