Mauzy v. Mauzy

• Decision Date: 07 October 1884
• Citation: 79 Va. 537
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: MAUZY & ALS. v. MAUZY & ALS.

79 Va. 537

MAUZY & ALS. v. MAUZY & ALS.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

October 7, 1884

Appeal from decrees of circuit court of Rockingham county rendered at March term, 1880, in the chancery cause of Maggie J. Mauzy and als. by & c., against Mauzy and als. Opinion states the case.

Wm. J. Robertson, J. S. Harnsberger, for the appellants.

J E. Roller, E. S. Conrad, W. Liggett, and C. E Haas, for the appellees.

OPINION

LEWIS P.

By deed bearing date October 26, 1869, Henry Kyger and others conveyed to Mrs. Maggie J. Mauzy a tract of land containing 199 5/8 acres, lying in the county of Rockingham. So much of that deed as is necessary to be here referred to, is as follows: " This deed made this 26th day of October 1869, between Henry Kyger [and others, naming them] of the first part, and Maggie J. Mauzy, wife of Jos. N. Mauzy, of the second part, * * witnesseth: that the said parties of the first part for and in consideration of the sum of eleven thousand dollars * * do hereby convey to the party of the second part the following tract of land [describing it]; to have and to hold the said tract of land for the sole and separate use and benefit of the said Maggie J. Mauzy, wife of Jos. N. Mauzy, and her children forever, free from any and all marital rights of her said husband, Jos. N. Mauzy, and especially free from all liability for the debts heretofore contracted, or hereafter to be contracted by the said Jos. N. Mauzy."

Afterwards, in March, 1873, the same land was conveyed by Mrs. Mauzy and her husband to John Paul, in trust to secure the payment to Charles A. Yancey, of four certain bonds in the trust deed described.

By the two decrees complained of, the court below held, first, that the trust deed was valid, and created a lien on the land in question; and, second, that the deed of the 26th October, 1869, conveyed the land absolutely to Mrs. Mauzy as and for her separate estate, and that her children took no interest therein whatever.

The correctness of the first decree depends upon the correctness of the last; for it is not denied that if the land was conveyed to Mrs. Mauzy alone, and not to her and her children jointly, her power to alien or to encumber it is absolute.

At common law incase of repugnancy between the premises and the habendum in deeds to natural persons, the latter gave way to the former; but as in this case the deed conveys the fee only by virtue of the...