Gause v. Hale
| Decision Date | 30 June 1842 |
| Citation | 2 Ired.Eq. 241,37 N.C. 241 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | SAMUEL C. GAUSE v. JAMES C. HALE & wife. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
In construing marriage articles, Courts of Equity are not restrained by the technical rules, which prevail in limitations of legal estates and executed trusts; but indulge in a liberal interpretation, so as to secure the protection and support of those interests, which, from the nature of the instrument, it must be presumed were thereby intended to be secured.
Where articles were entered into before marriage, by which it was stipulated, that, when the marriage took place, the lands and negroes therein mentioned, should be conveyed to a trustee named in said articles, that they might be assured to the wife during her natural life, and, from and after her decease, to the use and behoof of the heirs of the said wife and husband, and in default of such issue then to the use and behoof of the said wife, her heirs and assigns forever; it was decreed, on the bill of the said trustee, after the marriage, and against the expressed wishes of the said husband and wife in their answer, that the husband and wife should execute conveyances, by which there should be secured to the wife an estate during her life, free from the debts of the husband, and, during the coverture, exempt from his power, with a limitation to such children as might be born after marriage, equally to be divided between them, and, in case of the death of any of them under age, or, if females, unmarried and under age, with limitations over to the survivors and survivor, and with an ultimate limitation over to the wife, in case there should be no such issue of the marriage or none living at her death.
This cause was removed for hearing by consent of parties from the Court of Equity of Bladen county, at Fall Term, 1841, to the Supreme Court. The facts and questions raised in the case are stated in the opinion of this court.
Strange for the plaintiff .
No counsel for the defendant.
On the 11th of January, 1832, articles of agreement were executed between James O. Hale of the first part, Ann Council Gause of the second part, and the plaintiff Samuel C. Gause of the third part, whereby, after reciting that the said Ann was seized in fee of certain lands in the county of Brunswick, and possessed of certain slaves therein named, and that a marriage was about to be had and solemnized between the said James O. Hale and the said Ann, it was covenanted and agreed, that the said James and Ann, in case the intended marriage should take effect, should and would, by some good and sufficient conveyance, settle and assure the said lands in and to the said Samuel, to the use and behoof of the said Ann during the term of her natural life, and, from and after her decease, to the use and behoof of the heirs of the body of the said Ann by the said James, lawfully to be begotten, and, for the default of such issue, then...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rieger v. Schaible
...v. Printup, 39 Ga. 648; Matney v. Linn, 59 Kan. 613, 54 Pac. 668;Mintier v. Mintier, 28 Ohio St. 307;Tucker's Appeal, 75 Pa. 354;Gause v. Hale, 37 N. C. 241;Buffington v. Buffington, 151 Ind. 200, 51 N. E. 328; 21 Cyc. 1259. The rule seems to be that a widow may by appropriate and sweeping ......
-
Rieger v. Schaible
... ... Printup , 39 Ga. 648; Matney v. Linn , 59 Kan ... 613, 54 P. 668; Mintier v. Mintier, supra ; ... Tucker's Appeal , 75 Pa. 354; Gause v ... Hale , 37 N.C. 241; Buffington v. Buffington , ... 151 Ind. 200, 51 N.E. 328; 21 Cyc. 1259. The rule seems to be ... that a widow may by ... ...
-
Tremmel v. Kleiboldt
...v. Morgan, 5 Mad. Ch. 245; Marshall v. Beall, 6 How. 78; Schouler Dom. Rel., (2 Ed.) 195; 1 Wash. Real Prop., (4 Ed.) p. 169; Gause v. Hale, 2 Ired. Eq. 241; Woodcock v. Duke of Dorset, 3 Bro. C. C. 569. Kehr & Tittman for defendant in error. HOUGH, J. This is an action of ejectment. The pl......
-
Stewart v. Stewart
...such contracts will be enforced as written. As each has agreed, so shall he or she be bound. These are some of the cases in point: Gause v. Hale, 37 N.C. 241; Hooks Lee, 43 N.C. 157; Brooks v. Austin, 95 N.C. 474; Wright v. Westbrook, 121 N.C. 155, 28 S.E. 298; Harris v. Russell, 124 N.C. 5......