Farr v. Sherman
| Decision Date | 18 November 1862 |
| Citation | 11 Mich. 33 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Joseph G. Farr v. Betsey Sherman |
Heard November 4, 1862
Case made from Oakland Circuit.
Farr brought ejectment against Sherman, to recover lands which she had owned prior to 1855, and which, by deed bearing date in June of that year, she had conveyed to one Parish, through whom Farr claimed title. The defendant at the date of this deed was the wife of Samuel Sherman, since deceased, to whom she was married in 1843, and who did not consent to or have knowledge of this deed to Parish. The Circuit Court held the deed so given without the husband's assent to be void, and rendered judgment for defendant.
Judgment reversed, and a judgment rendered for the plaintiff.
M. L. Drake, for plaintiff.
I. H. Parish, for defendant.
The land in question being the property of the defendant at the time of the conveyance by her to Parish, she had power, under the act of 1855, to sell and convey it "in like manner and with a like effect as if she were unmarried." The obvious intention of the act of 1855 was to give to a feme covert the same control over and power of alienation of her property as she would have if a feme sole; and the husband's assent is no longer necessary to render valid a conveyance by her of her separate estate, as against herself. Whether the husband, if living with her, or surviving her, may not have rights adverse to the claim of her vendee to possession, and superior to that claim during the life of such husband, is a question not involved in this case; certainly no one but the husband can dispute the plaintiff's claim or title; and as the husband is dead, the right of the plaintiff to the possession is perfect.
The judgment should be reversed, and a judgment rendered for the plaintiff.
The other justices concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Brown v. Brown
-
Burdeno v. Amperse
...to her estate during coverture, instead of its possessor and manager; and his consent is not necessary to her disposal of it: Farr v. Sherman, 11 Mich. 33; Watson v. Thurber, 11 Id. 457. Whatever she may require when dealing with him, he certainly never was supposed to need any against her.......
-
Anima v. Lau Kona
...she could by contract made after the passage of the Act, charge her reversion in the estate acquired before its passage. In Farr vs. Sherman, 11 Mich. 33, the marriage acquisition of the land by the wife, took place before the passage of the Act of 1855. Soon after its passage she conveyed ......