• Open Daily: 10am - 10pm
    Alley-side Pickup: 10am - 7pm

    3038 Hennepin Ave Minneapolis, MN
    612-822-4611

Open Daily: 10am - 10pm | Alley-side Pickup: 10am - 7pm
3038 Hennepin Ave Minneapolis, MN
612-822-4611
Reports of Cases in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia Volume 1

Reports of Cases in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia Volume 1

Paperback

Currently unavailable to order

ISBN10: 1235834425
ISBN13: 9781235834424
Publisher: General Books
Weight: 1.07
Height: 0.57 Width: 7.44 Depth: 9.69
Language: English
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated.1897 Excerpt: ... Opinion. reference when he said in each of the wills he wrote: My wife to have $3,000 returned to her, the amount of her estate, if it was not this money? The declarations that he made to Sims and King were meaningless if he did not refer to the money he had received from the sale of his wife's land. Indeed, he said to King that the money he had was for his wife's interest in her land sold, and that it belonged to her. A trust created by the husband in favor of the wife has over and over again been sustained as founded on a meritorious consideration, which the law always implies in the relations existing between husband and wife, and parent and child. This case, however, does not stand alone upon a meritorious consideration, but upon a valuable consideration. It is true Dr. Riggan had an interest in the land, i. -., the right to the rents, issues, and profits during his life, provided he lived as long as his wife did. It was not, however, the ordinary interest a husband has in his wife's land. He was not tenant by the curtesy, as it could not become initiate or consummate. His interest would have continued only during their joint lives, ceasing at the death of either, while her interest would continue so long as she lived, even though her husband might have died years before she did. Yet by the decree appealed from his interest is made to appear as worth $1,725 and all accumulated interests, while hers was fixed at only $275. Whatever might have been his interest he had the right to dispose of it as he did. He was not indebted. No question of creditors arises in the case. It was not the husband's land in which the wife was relinquishing dower, but the wife's land in which he only had the rights to the rents, issues, and profits arising during their j...