Moore v. Page
Decision Date | 24 March 1884 |
Citation | 111 U.S. 117,4 S.Ct. 388,28 L.Ed. 373 |
Parties | MOORE and others v. PAGE and others |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
H. T. Helm, for appellants.
E. S. Isham and Wm. Burry, for appellees.
It is no longer a disputed question that a husband may settle a portion of his property upon his wife if he does not thereby impair the claims of existing creditors and the settlement is not intended as a cover to future schemes of fraud. The settlement may be made either by the purchase of property and taking a deed thereof in her name, or by its transfer to trustees for her benefit. And his direct conveyance to her, when the fact that it is intended as such settlement is declared in the instrument or otherwise clearly established, will be sustained in equity against the claims of creditors. The technical reasons of the common law growing out of the unity of husband and wife, which preclude a conveyance between them upon a valuable consideration, will not in such a case prevail in equity and defeat his purpose. Shepard v. Shepard, 7 Johns. Ch. 57; Hunt v. Johnson, 44 N. Y. 27; Story, Eq. § 1380; Pom. Eq. § 1101; Dale v. Lincoln, 62 Ill. 22; Deming v. Williams, 26 Conn. 226; Maraman's Adm'r v. Maraman, 4 Metc. (Ky.) 85; Sims v. Rickets, 35 Ind. 181; Story v. Marshall, 24 Tex. 305; Thompson v. Mills, 39 Ind. 532. Such is the purport of our decision in Jones v. Clifton, 101 U. S. 228. His right to make the settlement arises from the power which every one possesses over his own property, by which he can make any disposition of it that does not interfere with the existing rights of others of others. As he may give it, or a portion of it, to strangers, or for objects of charity, without any one being able to call in question either his power or right, so he may give it to those of his own household, to his wife or children. Indeed, settlements for their benefit are looked upon with favor, and are upheld by the courts. As we said in Jones v. Clifton: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Glover v. Brown
... ... 225, 25 L.Ed. 908, 910; Story's ... Eq. Jur., sec. 1380; Luhrs v. Hancock, 181 U.S. 567, ... 21 S.Ct. 726, 45 L.Ed. 1005; Moore v. Page, 111 U.S ... 117, 4 S.Ct. 388, 28 L.Ed. 373, see, also, Rose's U. S ... "No ... third party can question the validity of a ... ...
-
Mathy v. Mathy
...in equity, and the wife may contract with the husband on fair terms. 41 Ark. 177; 42 Ark. 503; 15 Ark. 519; 23 Ark. 507; 101 U.S. 225; 111 U.S. 117; 21 Neb. 671; 86 Ala. 357; 132 Ill. 445; Am. Dec. 49. S. W. Leslie, M. S. Cobb and Wood & Henderson, for appellee. 1. Argue from the evidence t......
-
Hamilton v. Diefenderfer
...396, 72 N.W. 247; Treblicock v. Big Mo. Min. Co., 9 S.D. 206, 68 N.W. 330; Smith v. Vodges, 92 U.S. 183, 23 L.Ed. 481; Moore v. Page, 111 U.S. 117, 28 L.Ed. 373; v. Clifton, 101 U.S. 225, 25 L.Ed. 908; Hagerman v. Buchanan, 45 N. J. Eq. 292, 14 Am. St. 732.) The authorities cited by counsel......
-
Ashforth v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
...to make it valid; that their relationship is sufficient to render love and affection between them a good consideration. Monroe v. Page, 111 U.S. 117; Atwater v. Seely, 2 Fed. 133; Hellyer v. Hellyer (Ia.), 112 N.W. 196; Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald (Mass.), 47 N.E. 431; Woodsworth v. Tanner (Mo......