| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 84 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
84 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. On the other hand, Macpherson ore Infants, after an examina- tion of the same cases, and perhaps of some others, arrives at a different result, and concludes that it is now established, that the real estate of a female infant is not bound, so far as she is concerned, by a settlement on her marriage; because the gene- ral incapacity of infancy invalidates the contract, and the con- tract of the husband cannot extend beyond the limited interest which he acquires by the marriage. There would seem to be no doubt of the power of a female infant to bar herself, by her contract before marriage, of her right of dower in her husband's lands, and of her distributive share of his personal estate. The decree of Lord Nottingham to the contrary, in Drury vs. Drury, 1 Eden's Rep., 39, was reversed in the House of Lords, and this reversal is considered by Chancellor Kent as finally settling the question. The case of Drury vs. Drury turned upon the statute of 27, Henry 8, in- troducing jointures, which Lord Nottingham supposed extended only to adult women, and this was the point of difference be- tween him and the House of Lords. This question came before the Chancery Court of New York, in the case of McCartee vs. Teller, 2 Paige, 511, and after a very learned and elaborate discussion at the bar, it was decided that by analogy to the statute, (which made a legal jointure settled upon an infant before marriage a bar of her dower,) a competent and certain equitable provision settled upon her in lieu of dower, to take effect immediately upon the death of the husband, and to continue during the life of the widow, and be- ing a reasonable and competent livelihood for the wife, under the circumstances, was also a bar. There would seem to be as little doubt of the power of a female infant to bind, by a settle- ment before marriage, her general personal estate, because such personal estate becomes by marriage the property of the hus- band, and the settlement is in effect his settlement and not hers. This general principle of the courts of equity may, and probably would, be considered modified by the act of our legis- lature of 1842, ch. 293, with reference to the particular descrip- tion of property mentioned in the act. |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 84 View pdf image (33K) |
|
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.
Maryland State Archives