clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search		 search for:
clear space
white space
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 81   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

LEVERING VS. HEIGHE, ADM. 81
MADISON LEVERING ET AL.
vs.
B. M. HEIGHE, ADM'R OF
NATHAN LEVERING ET AL.
DECEMBER TERM, 1850.
[INFANTS——CONTRACTS BY.]
THERE is no doubt of the power of a female infant, by a contract before mar-
riage, to bar herself of her right of dower in the real estate of her husband,
and of her distributive share of his personalty.
So also a settlement upon a wife before marriage, in lieu of dower, to take effect
immediately upon the death of the husband, and to continue during the life
of the widow, if it appears to furnish a reasonable support for the widow, and
to be certain and equitable, will be considered as a bar of her dower.
It seems equally clear that a female infant, before marriage, can bind her
general personal estate by a settlement; because such personalty, upon the
marriage, becomes the property of the husband. This general equity princi-
ple may be considered as modified in this state, by the act of 1842, ch. 293,
in respect to the particular description of property therein referred to.
But a female infant would not be bound by a settlement of her real estate made
before marriage.
Nor would a female infant be bound by an ante-nuptial settlement of her real
estate or her separate personalty, though made with the approbation of the
court.
Contracts made by infanta for necessaries are binding; one that the court can
see and pronounce to be prejudicial to an infant, will be pronounced void;
while such as may be for the benefit of the infant, will be held voidable only.
A female infant may give efficiency to a voidable settlement, either by an express
confirmation after attaining majority) or by some act which would make it
inequitable in her to impeach it.
If an infant does not live to ratify or reject a voidable contract made during his
minority, it may be set aside by parties who are privies in blood, though not
by those who are privies in estate only.
A. die intestate, leaving uncles and aunts, and the children of uncles and aunts:
HELD, that under the act of 1820, ch. 131, sec. 4, the uncles and aunts are
entitled to the whole real estate, to the exclusion of the children of the de-
ceased uncles and aunts.
[The bill in this case was filed on the equity side of Balti-
more County Court, on the 19th of September, 1834; for a
sale of certain real estate. A decree was passed for a sale at
September term, 1838, and the trustee filed his report of sales.
The Auditor stated an account distributing the proceeds of sale,
and exceptions were filed to parts of that report, by some of

  		clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 81   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!

An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  Cannot perform flastmod(): Win32 Error Code = 2

Maryland State Archives