Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

34 W. Va. 128

Robinson v. Neill

West Virginia Supreme Court

Decided September 12, 1890

West Virginia Supreme Court · decided 1890-09-12

<p>1. MaRbied Woman — Separate Estate.</p> <p>Where real estate is conveyed directly to a married woman by a vendor, the deed showing on its face that the consideration for said real estate is to be paid by said vendee in deferred payments, said vendee executing her notes to the vendor for said deferred payments, the first of which payments -appears to have been made by said vendee out of the proceeds of ice gathered and put up on said land by the husband of vendee acting as her agent, neither said ice nor a horse nor other property purchased with the proceeds of said ice should be held liable to be' levied upon and sold as the property of said husband for his debts.</p> <p>2. MaRried WomaN — Separate Property,</p> <p>If a levy is made on said ice, or property purchased with the proceeds arising from the sale thereof, said married woman may interplead, and such property will be held and considered as her separate property, and be released from such levy.</p>

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 1910

3 state decisions

Relies on Stockdale, Smith & Co. v. Harris · Miller v. Peck

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1890-09-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Snyder, President,

¶1{dissenting)

¶2It seems to me, that this whole action is a mere subterfuge, by which a married woman without any estate whatever, through the agency of her husband and by his fraud, has been invested with property acquired by his labor and service, and is attempting to exempt the same from the creditors of her husband upon no other ground than that she appointed him her agent. I therefore dissent from the foregoing opinion.

Lucas, Judge :

¶3I concur in the conclusions reached by the opinion above, as decided by Judge English, upon the further ground that a grant of real estate by a father to his own daughter by a deed, which gives her long and easy terms of payment, and on which no cash payment is made, and alien reserved for the purchase-money, can not properly be said to be a purchase by her husband, and that the circumstances relieve her from the presumption that her husband is to furnish *137the funds to pay for the land. I think that the father has a right to make such a contract with his own daughter, and that, if she can pay for the land out of the ice-crop, or other crops gathered on the same, neither the land itself nor such crops nor any personalty she may acquire from the proceeds thereof ought generally to be liable for judgments obtained against her husband. I think the case is ruled by Miller v. Peck, 18 W. Va. 75, and Hamilton v. Steele, 22 W. va. 348, rather than by McMaster v. Edgar, Id. 673, and Stockdale v. Harris, 23 W. Va. 499.

¶4REVERSED.

/34/wva/128 · .json · Public domain