Settle

1.

To set or determine the form of; as, to settle — a bill of exceptions, interrogatories, an issue.

See under Exception, 4.

3. (1) To reside; to gain a right to maintenance: as, for a pauper to be settled or to acquire a settlement in a particular township or county.* See Belong. The right is obtained by birth, parentage, marriage, continued residence, payment of taxes, exercise of a public office, hiring and service, serving an apprenticeship, etc., as local statutes pi'ovide.^ (8) To establish one's self upon; to occupy, reside upon: as, to settle land.

Settler.

Within the meaning of preemption laws, one who actually resides upon the land in question.^ See further Preemption, 2.

3.

Sometimes, to pay; sometimes, to account together and strike a balance by computation; at other times, to adjust matters in controversy, and strike a balance by agreement.^ "Settle" implies the mutual adjustment of accounts, and an agreement upon the balance. ^ An admission that a money demand has been " settled " is evidence tending to show payment.^ ^he settlement of an account between parties, resulting in a fixed balance, takes the case out of the " Greene v. Darling, 5 Mas. 212 (1828), Story, J.; Howe V. Sheppard, 2 Sumn. 414-16 (1836); Gordon v. Lewis, ib.

633-34 (1837); Hendrickson v. Hinckley, 17 How. 447 (1854); Wulschner v. Sells, 87 Ind. 75 (1882), cases. = Gray v. Ro Uo, 18 Wall. 682 (1873). = St. Louis, &c. E. Co. V. Chenault, 36 Kan. 53 (1886), cases. <See Jefferson u. Washington, 19 Me. 300 (1841), Whitman, C. J. » 1 Bl. Com. 303-64: 132 Mass. 499. ' See Peterson v. St. Paid, &c. E. Co., 27 Minn. 322 (1880); 3 Op. Att.-Gen. 126; 3 id. 182; 16 id.

88, 183; 1 Oreg. 166. ' See Moore v. Hyman, 13 Ired. L. 274 (1862). "Baxter v. State, 9 Wis. *44 (1869); 8 Wend. 600; 4 statute of limitations, without an express promise to pay the balance.^ A settled account is only prima facie evidence ot correctness. It may be impeached by proof of unf air- > ness or mistake, in law or in fact. If it be confined to particular items it concludes nothing in relation to other items not stated.^ Where an account is settled by the parties with aU the facts equally known to both, and no unfairness is practiced, the adjustment is conclusive.'* Settle up. Referring to the estate of a decedent or an insolvent, means to collect the assets, pay the debts, and distribute the balance, if any, according to law.

Compare Administkk, 4.

Final settlement

May refer to the payment of the final balance of cash ascertained to be in the hands of an executor or administrator, so as to leave nothing to be done to complete the execution of his trust.* Partial settlement. When founded on regular proceedings is oalj prima facie evidence of its own correctness.' A " final settlement " is a conclusive determination of all the past administration.^ When an executor or administrator presents his account, purporting to charge himself with everything received and to credit himself with everything disbursed, and showing a balance for distribution, and the court, after due notice to parties interested, approves and allows the account, that is a "final settlement " though there is outlying property which may yet come into the accountant's possession for administration. As to the subject-matter on which it operates the settlement is final. ^ 4. To transfer property, real or personal, for the benefit of another. Whence settlor or settler, and settlement: ante-nuptial, post-nuptial, or marriage settlement, articles or deed of settlement, lawful and fraudulent settlements. Deed of settlement. An instrument by which the use of property is settled upon one or more persons (the beneficiaries), with directions as to the mode and time of holding, enjoying, and disposing of the corpus of the property. The beneficiary is the settlor's wife or intended wife, wife and children, near relative, or creditors. 'Johns V. Lantz, 63 Pa. 326 (1809); Moaelland ii. West, TO id.

187 (1871). 2 Perkins v. Hart, 11 Wheat. 256 (1826). s Hager v. Thomson, 1 Black, 93 (1861). * Dufour V. Dufour, 28 Ind. 424 (1867), Frazer, C. J.; Stevens v. Tucker, 87 id.

114-15 (1882), cases. ' Sims V. Waters, 65 Ala. 445 (1880). •Pomeroy v. Mills, 37 N. J. E. 580 (1883), oases, A promise to settle property on an intended wife is void, under the Statute ot Frauds; and, made after marriage, is void for want of a consideration. The old doctrine that if the settlor is in debt his deed is void has been generally abandoned. The rule now is that prior indebtedness is presumptive, not conclusive, proof of fraud. Where there is no fraud there will be no infirmity in the deed. Every case depends upon its own circumstances. The vital question is the good faith of the transaction: there is no other test.' The right of a husband to settle a portion of his property upon his wife, and thus provide against the vicissitudes of fortune, when this can be done without impairing existing claims of creditors, is Indisputable. Its exercise tends to the future comfort of wife and children. The right arises from the absolute power he possesses over his own property, by which he can make any disposition which does not interfere with the existing rights of others. The transfer, moreover, may be directly to her: the technical reasons of the common law for conveying through a trustee having long since ceased to exist. A power reserved to revoke or to appoint to other uses does not impair the efficacy of the transfer; nor wiU such power pass to an assignee in bankruptcy. ^ An ante-nuptial settlement, though made with a fraudulent design on the part of the husband, should not be annulled without the clearest proof of the wife's participation in the intended fraud; for, upon its annulment, there can follow no dissolution of the marriage,— the consideration of the settlement.^ See Conveyance, 2, Fraudulent. A post-nuptial settlement will be presumed to have been " voluntary." The burden of proof that there was a valid consideration rests upon one claiming a benefit under such settlement.^ Equity of settlement. The right of a wife to have a portion of her equitable estate settled upon herself and her children. Termed the " wife's equity " and her "equity to a settlement." By marriage, at common law, the husband acquires an absolute property in all his wife's personalty which is capable of immediate possession, and a qualified right in such property as he may, by legal measures, reduce to possession. But, inasmuch as he cannot reach his interest in her equitable rights (as, for example, in an estate vested in a trustee), which interest is even less than a qualified one, without application to a, court of equity, in which she must join, that court will not aid him, unless he agrees to " do equity," ' Lloyd V. Fulton, 91 U. S. 485 X1875), cases, Swayne, Ju.stice. ■> Jones I'.

Clifton, 101 U. S. 227-^0 (1879), cases. Field, J.; Clark V. Killian, 103 id. 766 (1880); Wallace v. Penfield, 106 id.

260 (1882): 59 Mo. 158; Moore v. Page, 111 U. S. 118(18(M), cases; Bean v. Patterson, 122 id. 4C9 (1887), cases. 3 Prewit V. Wilson. 103 U. S. 25, 24 (1880). cases. * Periy ti. Ruby, 81 Va. 317,.326 (1886), cases; Adams by making suitable provision for her out of that or other property in the event of her surviving him. The rule applies, also, as against his assignee; and, also, when she as plaintiff seeks like relief against her husband or his assignee.' Strict settlement. A settlement by which laud was limited to a parent for life, and, after his death, to his son, sons, or children in tail, with one or more trustees interposed to preserve contingent remainders.^ In substance, a limitation iirst to the use of the settlor himself until a contemplated marriage took place, then to the use of the husband and wife for life, with remainder to the use of their first or other sons in tail; this being as far as a limitation could go without the intervention of a trustee." See Perpetuity. The object was to put it out of the power of parents to deal with the corpus of an estate to the prejudice of their issue.