Hemingray v. Todd
Citation | 5 Kan. 660 |
Parties | J. C. HEMINGRAY v. JARED TODD, et al |
Decision Date | 20 February 1865 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
[Syllabus Material]
Error from Leavenworth County.
The facts of the case are substantially as follows:
In A D. 1861 and 1862 Hemingray obtained judgments against Jared Todd, and sought by an action against him, Martha his wife and others, to reach his interest in a certain piece of land the history of the title to and of the purchase money for which, so far as it bears upon this case, is as follows:
Jared Todd, in the State of Missouri, intermarried with Martha, the widow of one H.; that her father E. was administrator of the estate of H., and at the request of Martha, E. previous to February 11th, 1858, and after the marriage, paid over to Jared Todd certain moneys belonging to Martha, proceeds of said estate; that Jared loaned this money to S., taking security upon the premises in question, payable to himself; that Jared afterwards, on March 29th, 1860, procured a conveyance of the premises, to be made in satisfaction of that security which was a part of the consideration, and which was thereupon canceled, to his wife Martha, who executed her separate note to S. for the balance of the consideration for the deed of conveyance to her. The case was submitted to a jury.
To bring the facts out still more clearly the following are among the instructions asked by the plaintiff, and refused by the court below, viz:
The defendant, Jared Todd, claimed that there was an understanding that he acted in the whole transaction as agent of his wife.
A verdict and judgment for defendants below. A new trial overruled. Exceptions were saved to the rulings, refusing to give the instructions asked, and refusing to grant a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Hemingray & Gambell, for plaintiff in error.
Lewis Burns, and others, for defendants in error.
For plaintiff, it was maintained:
1. At the time of the marriage of Jared Todd with Martha, all her personal estate became the property, absolutely, of her husband, and particularly when that property was reduced to possession by the husband during coverture. Enlaws Ex'rs v. Enlaws, 3 Marsh. 229; Fightmaster v. Beasley, 7 J. J. Marsh., 411; Lewis v. Night, 3 Littell 225; Hawkins Adm'r v. Craig et Ux., 6 Ben. Mon., 257; Wilkinson v. Perrie, 7 id. 216; Porters' Ex'rs v. Silver Adm'r, etc., 5 J. J. Marsh., 36; Scott, etc., v. Hughes, 9 Ben. Mon., 110; Sheriff of Fayette v. Buckner, 1 Littell 127; Ewings' Heirs etc., v. Handley's Ex'rs, 4 id. 349; South's Heirs v. Hoy's Heirs, 3 Ben. Mon., 93; Churchills' Heirs v. Aikins Adm's, 5 Dana 476; Basham v. Chamberlain, 7 Ben. Mon., 445; Garret v. Gault, 13 id. 380; Walker v. Walker, 25 Mo. 364; Houck v. Camplin, id., 378; 15 Barb....
To continue reading
Request your trial