Lux v. Hoff
| Decision Date | 30 June 1868 |
| Parties | JOHN LUXv.NICHOLAS HOFF. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Randolph county; the Hon. SILAS L. BRYAN, Judge, presiding.
In this case, John Lux filed a bill in chancery, in the court below, reciting that complainant was sole surviving heir of Barbara Hoff, deceased; that said Barbara was the mother of complainant, and was formerly the wife of John Lux, the father of complainant, and that in March, 1856, she intermarried with Nicholas Hoff, the defendant; that in November, of said year, she and her said husband purchased, with money belonging to said Barbara, a tract of land, therein named, which said tract was conveyed to said Nicholas Hoff and Barbara Hoff, to have and to hold the same, to them, their heirs and assigns forever. It charges that since the death of the said Barbara, complainant has demanded a portion or division of said lands, and that defendant has always refused to do so, or to make any equitable settlement with complainant in relation to his mother's interest.
It prays an account with said Hoff, and a decree for whatever balance complainant is entitled to thereon, and for a partition of said lands.
To this bill, the defendant, Hoff, demurred, and the court sustained the demurrer, and dismissed the bill with costs, and complainant appealed.
The only questions are, whether the complainant, as heir to Mrs. Hoff, is entitled to a partition, and whether the fact that the purchase money of the lands belonged to Mrs. Hoff, did not create a trust in her favor.
The record shows that the marriage and purchase were both prior to the act of 1861, in relation to the separate property of married women.
Mr. THOMAS G. ALLEN, for the appellant.
1. What was said by the court in Mariner v. Saunders, 5 Gilm. 124, in relation to the right of survivorship in conveyances of this kind, was mere dictum. The question was not before the court.
2. The doctrine of survivorship, in such estates, rests upon old fiction of unity of person in husband and wife; in this enlightened age, we have no such rule, and it has not been favored in American courts. Sargeant v. Steinberger, 2 Ohio R. 305; Wilson v. Fleming, 13 Ohio R. 68; Whittlesey v. Fuller, 11 Conn. 337.
3. The doctrine that the whole must remain to the survivor is abrogated by the 46th section of our statute of Wills, which provides that “estates, both real and personal, of resident or non-resident proprietors in this State, dying intestate, or whose estates, or any part thereof, shall be deemed and taken as intestate estates, and after all just debts and claims against such estate shall be paid as aforesaid, shall descend to and be distributed to his or her children, and their descendants in equal parts,” etc.
This case is submitted on the appellant's brief.
The principle has been too long settled to be now contested, that if an estate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haguewood v. Britain
...was intended. These principles are stated in 13 R. C. L., sec. 440. In Reed v. Reed, 109 Md. 690, 130 Am. St. 552, 72 A. 414, and Lux v. Hoff, 47 Ill. 425, it is held that if purchase by the wife or by the husband and wife is made with the wife's money and title taken in them jointly, no tr......
-
Haguewood v. Britain
...These principles are stated in 13 R. C. L. § 440. In Reed v. Reed, 109 Md. 690, 72 Atl. 414, 130 Am. St. Rep. 690, and Lux v. Hoff, 47 Ill. 425, 95 Am. Dec. 502, it is held that if a purchase by the wife or by the husband and wife is made with the wife's money and title taken in them jointl......
-
Broughton v. Brand
... ... there can be no resulting trust in her favor, notwithstanding ... the use of her money in the purchase. Wells on Separate ... Property of Married Women, secs. 212-217, pp. 257-259; 1 ... Perry on Trusts [3 Ed.] sec. 139, p. 157; Lux v ... Hoff, 47 Ill. 425; Dayton v. Fisher, 34 Ind ... 356; Sanford v. Weeden, 2 Heisk. 74. By section ... 3296, Revised Statutes, 1879, a married woman's personal ... property is declared to be her separate property, and her ... husband's marital right therein is so abridged that he ... cannot reduce ... ...
-
Vasilion v. Vasilion
...law, was to remain in the survivor. Lang v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 289 U.S. 109, 53 S.Ct. 534, 77 L.ed. 1066; Lux v. Hoff, 47 Ill. 425, 95 Am.Dec. 502. The heirs of the deceased spouse inherit no part of the property so held. The entire estate remains exclusively in the surviving......