Chandler v. Morgan

Mississippi Supreme Court
Chandler v. Morgan, 60 Miss. 471 (Miss. 1882)
Campbell

Chandler v. Morgan

Opinion of the Court

Campbell, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Mrs. Hastings had no legal authority to charge her separate estate to indemnify the surety on the recognizance of her son, nor can the deed of trust be maintained as a charge on her income upon the ground that it was executed for the debt of her husband. He owed no debt, and the deed of trust was not given to secure a debt or undertaking of the husband. He joined in it simply .to enable his wife to convey. His liability was not thought of or looked to. The deed of trust on the wife’s land was the thing bargained for and relied on, and not any liability of the husband.

Decree reversed, injunction restored and made perpetual, and decree here accordingly.

Reference

Full Case Name
John Chandler v. J. Wiley Morgan
Cited By
1 case
Status
Published
Syllabus
Married Womah. Power to give trust-deed, under Code 1871. Indemnity against penal bond. Case in judgment. D. having been arrested and imprisoned -upon a criminal charge, his mother and father, in order to procure his release from custody till the next term of the court thereafter, procured M. to become surety on his bond for appearance, and on the 15th of June, 1876, executed jointly a deed of trust on her lands to indemnify M. against any loss on account of the forfeiture of the bond. On the 16th of January, 1877, D.’s mother, Mrs. H., and her husband, for a valuable consideration, sold and conveyed the same land to 0., who had notice, actual and constructive, of the existence of the trust-deed for the benefit of M. D. failed to appear as required by his bond, a forfeiture was taken thereon, and M. had to pay the cost of the proceedings on the bond, though not the penalty thereof. He then caused the trustee in the deed of trust to advertise the land for sale to reimburse him for the costs thus paid out. 0. filed a bill to enjoin the sale. M. answered, and proof was taken by both sides. On final hearing the bill was dismissed. Held, that the bill should have been maintained and the sale perpetually enjoined. Mrs. H. had no legal authority to charge her separate estate to indemnify the surety on the recognizance of her son, nor can the deed of trust be maintained as a charge on her income upon the ground that it was executed for the debt of her husband.