Ellington v. Harris

• Decision Date: 12 December 1906
• Citation: 56 S.E. 134,127 Ga. 85
• Parties: ELLINGTON. v. HARRIS.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

127 Ga. 85

56 S.E. 134

ELLINGTON.

v.HARRIS.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Dec. 12, 1906.

1. Evidence — Presumptions—Common Law.

There being no evidence as to what was the law of the state of South Carolina, the presumption is that the common law there prevailed.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 20, Evidence, § 101.]

2. Husband and Wife—Property Rights.

At common law marriage amounts to an absolute gift to the husband of the personal chattels of which the wife is in possession in her own right at the time of the marriage.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 26, Husband and Wife, §§ 38-41.]

3. Same—Personalty.

When the title to personal chattels vests in the husband by virtue of his marital rights, such chattels remain his property until the title to the same is divested in some legal method.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 26, Husband and Wife, §§ 38-41.]

4. Same.

If the husband acquires, under the law of another state, title to personal chattels of the wife by virtue of his marital rights, and thereafter brings such chattels within this state, they still remain the property of the husband, notwithstanding the law of this state, declaring that the property of the wife at the time of the marriage shall not vest in the husband, but remain her separate property. The title acquired under the law of the state of the marriage is not divested by removal of the property to this state.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 26, Husband and Wife, §§ 38-41.]

5. Same—Title to Realty.

If, after such property is brought into this state, the same is sold, and the proceeds invested in land, and the title taken in the name of the husband, and the husband dies in possession, title to the land, upon his death, vests in his heirs, and not in the heirs of his wife.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 20, Husband and Wife, §§ 38-41.]

6. Same.

Mere admissions by the husband, during his lifetime, that he held the land for the benefit of the heirs of the wife, will not divest the title of his heirs, unless it appears that there has been, during the lifetime of the wife, a gift to her of the chattels, title to which was acquired by virtue of his marital rights, or such a gift of the proceeds of the sale of such chattels before the same were invested in the land.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Cherokee County; Geo. F. Gober, Judge.

J. P. Ellington, administrator, advertised certain lands for sale as the property of his Intestate, and Nannie Harris interposed a claim to an undivided half of the land. Verdict for claimant, and the administrator brings error. Reversed.

J. P. Ellington, as administrator of T. R. Ellington, advertised certain lands for sale as the property of his intestate. Mrs. Nannie Harris interposed a claim to an undivided half interest in the land. At the trial It appeared that the intestate died in possession of the land, and that the legal title to the same was in him. The evidence relied on by the claimant consisted of admissions made by the intestate, during his lifetime, that the land was purchased with money belonging to the wife, that during her lifetime he held it for her benefit, and that after her death he held It for the benefit of himself and the claimant, who were the only heirs of the wife. There was also evidence that at the time of making some of these admissions he stated that he married his wife in South Carolina, and that at the time of her marriage she had a certain sum of money and articles of personal property of which he took possession, and that the land was purchased with the proceeds of the property of his wife. It appeared, from some of these admissions, that the marriage of the Intestate took place In 1867, and that he removed to Georgia after that date, bringing with him the personal property above referred to. The jury returned a verdict In favor of the claimant, and the administrator assigns error upon the refusal to grant a new trial.

Geo. I. Teasley and J. P. Brooke, for plaintiff in error.

J. Z. Foster and P. P. Dupre, for defendant in error.

COBB, P. J. (after stating the facts). There was no evidence as to what was the law of South Carolina. The presumption is that the common law prevailed at the time of the marriage of the intestate. Mass. Life Ass'n v. Robinson, 104 Ga. 276. 30 S. E. 918, 42 L. R. A. 201; Thomas v. Clarkson, 125 Ga. 78, 54 S. E. 77. The common law, as to the effect of marriage upon personal chattels of the wife, was thus stated by Judge Nisbet, in Bell v. Bell, 1 Ga. 640: "At common law marriage amounts to an absolute gift to the husband of all the goods, personal chattels, and personal estate, of which the wife is actually or beneficially possessed at...