| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 86 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
86 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. but it was subsequently abandoned, as it was found that the lady would be of age, and would have the power of confirming the settlement, before the appeal could be disposed of. It appears to me, therefore, that the weight of authority is against these settlements, and I can see no sufficient reason why the rule of law which incapacitates an infant during minority from disposing of property, should be released in their favor. The contract of a female infant in reference to her dower and thirds, when made upon sufficient consideration, stands, as we have seen, upon a totally different ground; as do those settle- ments before marriage, relating to the general personal estate, which, upon the marriage, would, by operation of law, devolve upon the husband. But though I think the settlement in this case was not abso- lutely binding upon the wife, so far as the real estate is con- cerned, I do not look upon it as simply void, because its stipulations and provisions appear to me to have been bene- ficial to her. Indeed, none of the cases to which I have been referred, or which I have met with in the books, treat these settlements as merely void and incapable of confirmation by the wife after she attains the competent age. The cases, on the contrary, show that the infant may give efficacy to the settlement, either by an express confirmation after attaining majority, or by some act which would make it inequitable in her to impeach it. In Durnford vs. Lane, 1 Bro. C. C., 106, Lord Thurlow, after expressing a strong opinion against the validity of settle- ments by female infants in contemplation of marriage, even when made in consideration of competent settlements upon them, says, if she had a settlement from her husband, and after his death she takes possession of it, he thought she would be bound by the equity arising from her own act; and this obser- vation he made, as he remarked, in deference to the cases of Cannal vs. Buckle, 2 P. Wm., 342, and Harvey vs. Ashley, 3 Atk., 615. In this latter case, the opinion of Lord Hardwick is clearly expressed in favor of the validity of the agreement of an infant, |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 86 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