Rowland v. Rowland
| Decision Date | 30 April 1855 |
| Citation | 34 Tenn. 543 |
| Parties | JAMES T. ROWLAND et al. v. THOMAS ROWLAND. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
This bill was filed in chancery, at Huntingdon, by the heirs of William Rowland to have a certain conveyance of land, made by their father in his lifetime, set aside upon the ground that it was made fraudulently to defeat the widow's right of dower. The bill asks that the title to said land, exclusive of the widow's dower, be divested out of the vendee, and vested in them as heirs at law of the vendor. The defendant demurred to the bill, which was disallowed, with leave to answer over, which was waived. Chancellor Pavatt declared the conveyance to be fraudulent and void as to all parties, and decreed the land to the complainants, subject to the widow's dower. The defendant appealed.
Alvin Hawkins, for the complainant, cited the act of 1784, ch. 22 (Rev. Stat. 262); Richards v. Richards et al., 11 Humph. 429; Brown v. Connell, id. 500.
L. M. Jones, for the defendant, cited 1 Story's Eq. Jur. 371; Moody v. Fry, 3 Humph. 367; 1 Meigs' Dig. 546; Mulloy, Admr., v. Young, 10 Humph. 298.
The bill states that one William Rowland was owner in fee of certain land in Carroll county; that on the 3d June, 1851, he conveyed it to his father, the defendant; that the conveyance was made to defeat and defraud the wife of the said William Rowland of any right she might have to alimony or dower; that he abandoned his said wife and children, went to Arkansas, where he died intestate; that dower has been assigned to the widow of said intestate in said land, on the ground that said conveyance was fraudulent and void.
The plaintiffs are the children and heirs at law of said intestate, and as such insist that they are entitled to said land against the false and fraudulent deed to the defendant.
The defendant demurred, and the demurrer was disallowed, with leave to answer, which being waived by the defendant, the chancellor made a final decree-- declared the deed to be fraudulent and void. The defendant thereon appealed to this court.
In support of the decree, it is now argued that the deed is utterly and wholly void under the provisions of the act of 1784, ch. 22, sec. 8. That act provides that any deed fraudulently made, with the intention to defeat the widow of her dower, “shall be held and deemed to be void.” That the true construction is that the deed shall be void as to every person and for every purpose.
We do not concur in this construction of the statute. The general rule is that the owner of property has the power to sell and dispose of it at his discretion, and as he may deem proper. This is a much valued right inherent in property, and in which its value to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. Hedges
...of any evidence on the question, the claim must be presumed to have been well grounded. Cf. Mulloy v. Young, 29 Tenn. 298; Rowland v. Rowland, 34 Tenn. 543; Swann Castleman, 63 Tenn. 257. Indeed, had it been otherwise, there would have been no occasion to attempt to cover up the property. T......
-
Thomas v. Hedges
...of any evidence on the question, the claim must be presumed to have been well grounded. Cf. Mulloy v. Young, 29 Tenn. 298; Rowland v. Rowland, 34 Tenn. 543; Swann v. Castleman, 63 Tenn. 257. Indeed, had it been otherwise, there would have been no occasion to attempt to cover up the The cont......
-
Warren v. Compton
...act could be asserted only by the widow, and then only to the extent of recovering her dower interest in the land conveyed. Rowland v. Rowland (1855) 34 Tenn. 543. The intent of the husband at the time of the conveyance governs. Reynolds v. Vance (1870) 48 Tenn. 344. The Code of 1932 amende......