Trapnell v. Conklyn
| Decision Date | 10 December 1892 |
| Citation | 37 W.Va. 242 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Trapnell, et al. v. Conklyn, et al. (Lucas, P., absent.) |
Husband and Wife Separate Estate Married Woman.
Property purchased by a married woman from a person other than her husband is her separate property, although purchased on credit and paid for out of profits arising from its use by her, and although when purchased she had no separate estate, (p. 247.)
Husband and Wife Separate Estate Married Woman.
A married woman owning separate estate, and living with her husband, though she may not engage in business generally, may employ such estate in business to which it is adapted; and, though her labor and skill enter into the employment of such estate, the profits are her separate estate, as also any property purchased therewith, (p. 249.)
husrand and WlFE separate estate married woman.
Section 13, c. 66. Code 1887, relates not to wives living with their husbands, employing their separate estate in business, but only to those living separate and apart from their husbands. That section does not prohibit wives living with their husbands and owning separate estate from engaging with it in business, (p. 250.)
Husband and Wife Separate Estate Married Woman.
The fact that an insolvent husband voluntarily bestows his labor and skill in the business of farming carried on by his wife upon land, which is her separate property, and operated with her separate property, will not in the absence of fraud render the products the property of the husband and liable for his debts. If such products, after the support of the family, leave a surplus in property attributable to his skill and labor, equity would make a just apportionment between wife and creditors, (p. 250.)
Husband and Wife Separate Estate Married Woman.
The marital relation does not prevent the husband from acting as his wife's agent in managing her separate estate, (p. 252.)
Parent and Child Father and Child.
Though a father is entitled to the services of his minor child, and property coming from his labor is liable to the father's debts, yet the father, though insolvent, may emancipate the child, and then the child's services will no longer belong to the father, or his earnings liable to his debts. (p. 253.)
7. Parent Child Father and Child Married Woman Separate Estate.
If a minor child, with the father's consent, give his mother the benefit of his labor on her separate estate, profits wrought by the child's labor will not be liable for the father's debts, (p. 254.)
8. Husband and Wife Separate Estate.
Mingling wife's separate property with property of the husband, discussed, (p. 255.)
9. Husband and Wife Separate Estate.
Where prior to April 1, 1869, a man married a woman entitled to a legacy, under a will taking effect prior to that date, but he did no act to reduce the legacy to possession prior to that date, section 3, c. 66, of the Code made it her separate estate, cutting off his right to reduce it to possession, (p. 250.)
10. Husband and Wife Separate Estate Evidence Declaration.
In a contest between creditors and a wife claiming property levied upon as the husband's property under executions against him, declarations of the husband as to the ownership of the property are not admissable as evidence against the wife. (p. 257.)
Cleon Moore and J. J. Williams for plaintiff in error, cited 21 Ind. 454; 6 Watts & S. 290; 67 Am. Dec. 579; 55 Ga. 406; 18 W. Ya. 97; 85 Ya. 446; Id. 368; 34 W. Ya. 563.
Forrest W. Brown and J. F. Engle for defendant in error, cited 1 Greenl. Ev. §§ 461, 462; 8 Graft. 289; 30 Graft. 652; 6 W. Va. 388; 7 W. Va. 348; 8 W. Va. 372; 18 W. Va. 75; 22 W. Va 452; Id. 676, 673; 23 W. Va. 449; 27 W. Va. 206; 24 W. Va. 199, 203; 31 W. Va. 94, 104; Id. 428; 7 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law 138; 34 W. Va 563; Best Ev. 78, 217; 1 Greenl. Ev. §§ 463, 465; 12 W. V. Ya. 487; 21 W. Va 224; 29 W. Va. 441; 102 Mass. 236; 115 Mass. 165; Am. Dig. (1889) 994; 24 W. Va. 409.
Personal property was levied upon as property of James H. Conklyn, under executions against him and bis wife, and Susan C. Conklyn, claiming it; and a trial was had by a jury in the Circuit Court of Jefferson county, under Code, c. 107, ss. 1, 5, 6, to settle the right thereto between Mrs. Conklyn and Trapnell and Croft, use, etc., the execution creditors, resulting in a verdict finding part of said property to be the property of said James A. Conklyn. From the judgment carrying said verdict into execution Mrs. Conklyn obtained this writ of error.
The real merits of the case are involved in the motion of Mrs. Conklyn to set aside the verdict, because contrary to the evidence, which was overruled.
James H. Conklyn, becoming involved, on March 28, 1885, surrendered all his land and personalty, except seventy live dollars household goods, the estate conveyed being very considerable in amount, to his creditors by a deed of trust, under which, on April 20, 1885, the trustee sold the personal property, and in August, 1885, sold the farm, on which Conklyn resided, eighty one acres. Daniel Hefflebower, who is the brother of Mrs. Conklyn, purchased said farm for his wife, and it was paid for out of her separate estate. Daniel Ilefflebower bought at the trustee's sale the wheat growing upon said eighty one acres for his sister, Mrs. Conklyn, also a roan mare, at the price of three hundred and fifty one dollars and sixty four cents, for the purpose of furnishing his sister with means to farm; and, acting for his wife, Ilefflebower leased the farm to his sister Mrs. Conklyn, after he purchased it. Ilefflebower sold the wheat and mare and colt to Mrs. Conklyn on credit at the same price he paid, and afterwards she cut the said wheat, and out of it partly paid for it and the mare and colt.
Mrs. Nancy Conklyn, mother of James H. Conklyn, in December, 1884, leased for no definite time another tract of land, which he on becoming insolvent turned over to his wife to be farmed, and which was farmed by her in connection with and in the same manner as the eighty one-acre farm.
Mrs. Susan C. Conklyn, while living with, her husband, to some extent with his assistance and the assistance of her son, about eighteen years of age, and of a hired man, in 1885 put out a corn crop on both said tracts of land, using with the trustee's consent, until 29th April, the horses and farming implements of James II. Conklyn conveyed in said deed of trust.
While Mrs. Conklyn was farming she had the help of farming implements and horses lent to her by her brother, Daniel Hefnebower, and other assistance from him. He gave her five hogs to stock the farm. Thus, equipped, she began farming both farms, the son, with the father's consent, working the farms with hands hired from time to time, and paid for out of the proceeds of the farm, the son having no contract, but receiving from time to time such amounts of money as could he spared, amounting to one hundred and fifty dollars, including clothing.
The husband was absent much of the time, selling machinery on commission for a firm, and for many months physically and mentally incapacitated by disease for work or business to any extent, and for a time in a hospital. When at home and not incapacitated, he gave some help on the farm, and to some extent assisted the wife and son in superintending and managing it. He acted generally as his wife's agent in selling and buying, but the son and Mrs. Conklyn's brother frequently took part.
From the proceeds of the farm so operated, and on credit given to her by it, the operating expenses, household expenses, and such articles as stock and other things as were needed were provided from time to time. At a sale of John Benner in March, 1886, a black mare was bought by 11efflebower for his sister, for one hundred and thirty seven dollars, on which was credited forty one dollars, the price of a colt of hers which had been sold at said sale, and its price taken up in the bill; and for ninety six dollars, the balance James H. Conklyn gave his note as his wife's agent, indorsed by Hefnebower, and paid by him when due. In March, 1887, at a sale of Col. Gibson's, Hefnebower purchased for his sister a bay horse, for which her husband as her agent gave his note, indorsed by Hefnebower, which was paid when due by young Conklyn, the son above mentioned, with Hefnebowers check for one hundred dollars to young Conklyn, lent by lleffiebower to his sister on the son's request, by his mother's direction; and the balance was paid by the son with money furnished by the mother..
On loans and the sale of said property by Hefnebower to his sister payments were made from time to time out of the proceeds of the farm, and out of them and other transactions grew an account on which a balance remained unpaid, estimated to be some seventy live dollars.
The property levied on was derived as follows: Thesorrel colt was the foal of the mare bought at Benner's sale. Two colts were descendants of the roan mare sold at the trustee's sale and the bay horse bought at Gibson's sale. A wagon was bought by James II. Conklyn, as agent for his wife, on credit, and paid for out of money supplied by the wife out of a payment by Daniel Hefflebower, as executor of his father, upon a legacy of three hundred dollars to Mrs. Conklyn under the will of her father, probated in 1867, which money was paid her in 1890. The hogs were the increase of those given to Mrs. Conklyn by her brother in 1885. A horserake was bought on the credit of the farm and paid for out of its proceeds. Crops levied on were raised on the farms in 1890, in the manner aforesaid. The verdict relieved the hogs and wagon from the executions.
At the date of the sale by the trustee, Mrs. Conklyn had no separate estate save the three hundred dollars legacy under her father's will.
The theory, upon which it is claimed that all the property found by the j ury to be property of James H. Conklyn and liable for his...
To continue reading
Request your trial