Ellis v. Alford
Ellis v. Alford
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The deposition of Mrs. Ellis was properly suppressed, Code, § 1601, but her husband is a competent witness, and his deposition should not have been suppressed. Wherefore we consider the case with his testimony as part of it. Thus considering it, we find the issue of fact against Mrs. Ellis on the charge that her father committed a fraud upon her in the exchange of real estate between them. The whole evidence falls far short of maintaining the grave charge made by the bill. It is opposed by many probabilities and not supported by any satisfactory evidence, while the clearest and most satisfactory is required in such a case.
It is true that Mrs. Ellis was not quite twenty-one years of age and was a married woman when she made the conveyance to her father, but she remained in the possession and dominion of the land conveyed by her father to her up to the time of exhibiting her bill, and her disability as a married woman ceased November 1, 1880. Under these circumstances it is ancient law that she must be held to have confirmed her voidable act in making an exchange of lands
This just and wholesome doctrine has not lost any of its excellence by the lapse of centuries, and is still the law. Tyler on Infancy, etc., 540, § 40 et seq;; Brown v. Caldwell, 10 S. & R. 114; Wheaton v. East, 5 Yerger 41; Henry v. Root, 33 N. Y. 526, and cases cited; Bingham on Infancy 51; Schouler’s Domestic Rel. 588.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- M. J. Ellis v. L. C. Alford
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Evidence. Estate of decedent. Husband and wife. Section 1602, Code of 1880, applied. In 1875, M., a married woman, conveyed a tract of land, her separate property, to A., the husband of M. joining in the conveyance. A. died in 1885, and M. and her husband filed a bill against A.’s legatees to have her conveyance can-celled, on the ground that it was obtained by fraud. Section 1602, Code of 1880, provides that “No person shall testify as a witness to establish his own claim of any amount, for or against the estate of a deceased person, which originated during the lifetime of such deceased person.” On the trial the Chancellor suppressed the depositions of M. and her husband. Held, that the testimony of M. was not competent, but that of her husband was. 2. Infant. Married woman. Exchange of land. Affirmance by occupancy. On the 23d of December, 1875, M., an infant married woman, conveyed a tract of land to A., in exchange for a tract conveyed by him to her. She attained her majority on the 12th of November, 1876; and, on the 1st of November, 1880, her disabilities as a femme covert were removed. She, having received immediate possession of the land conveyed to her by A., continued to occupy the same till the 1st of April, 1885, when she filed a bill to annul her conveyance, on the ground of fraud. Held, that her occupancy of the land received from A. after the attainment of her majority was an affirmance of her conveyance.