Jourdan v. Dean
Jourdan v. Dean
Opinion of the Court
in No. 361,
■There was no controversy as to the - controlling facts in this case.-' -They are substantially the same as those embodied in the
In his opinion, disposing of the questions of law involved in both cases, and directing judgment for the defendants in this ease, non obstante veredicto, the learned president of the forty-seventh judicial district, who specially presided at the trial, summarized his legal conclusions thus :
“ 1st. That a sole and separate use trust was legally constituted in Ann Miller to the land in controversy, and that no title became vested in the grantees in any of the deeds executed by her and her husband, in his lifetime, for any part of said land, by virtue of said deeds.”
“ 2d. That the receipt of purchase money, from the grantees in the deeds made by Ann Miller during the lifetime of her husband, by herself and by others under her direction, worked a ratification and redelivery of said deeds, and thereby estopped her heirs from claiming any portion of the land in controversy.”
The thought, evidently in the mind of the learned judge, as to the effect of the receipt of purchase money, after the death of Mr. Miller, is not as clearly expressed in his second conclusion as he intended it should be. It is frankly conceded by the learned counsel for plaintiffs, that he meant to say the receipt of purchase money, etc., by Ann Miller and by others under her direction, after the death of her husband, “ worked a ratification,” etc.
The first conclusion of law is, of course, satisfactory to the plaintiffs. Their specifications of error are directed exclusively to the second conclusion of law, and to the entry of judgment for the defendants non obstante veredicto. Notwithstanding the very able and ingenious argument of their learned counsel, we are not convinced that there is anything in the record to justify us in sustaining either of their specifications of error. On the contrary, we are all satisfied as to the correctness of the conclusions reached by the learned trial judge. The questions involved have been so carefully and exhaustively considered by him that further discussion of any of them is unnecessary. The judgment is therefore affirmed on the opinion of the learned president of the forty-seventh judicial district.
in No. 857, May 25,1896:
This case was argued, with No. 361 of January term, 1896, Jourdan et al., Appellants, v. Dean et al., in which an opinion has just been filed.
We are all of opinion that both of the learned trial judge’s legal conclusions are correct, and the judgment is therefore affirmed on his opinion.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Mary M. Jourdan v. Silas L. Dean
- Cited By
- 7 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Trusts and trustees — Separate use trust — Married woman — Estoppel. A married woman may direct that the share of an estate left to her by1 a relative may be invested in real estate in trust for her sole and separate use. Trusts and trustees — Separate use trust — Estoppel. Where a married woman enjoying a separate use trust in lands joins with her husband in executing deeds for the lands, and after the death of her husband accepts payment of a portion of the purchase money, she is estopped from asserting title as against the grantees in the deeds from herself and husband, and such acceptance works a ratification and redelivery of the deed. The administrator of an estate bought a tract of land, taking title in his own name, with the share of A, a married woman, who was one of the distributees. Subsequently he executed a declaration that he held the land in trust for the sole and separate use of A, and that he would upon the request of A or her heirs convey the land to her or to her heirs, or to such other person or persons as she might direct. The declaration of trust was recorded and at the same time and place an acceptance of the trust, apparently as part of the same instrument, was recorded. The acceptance was acknowledged as if A were a single woman. ■ Subsequently the administrator executed a deed to A for the land “ in fee simple, to hold to her sole and separate use,” and she and her husband executed and delivered a fee simple deed for the land to B for a valid consideration, a portion of which was received by her after her husband’s death. Held, (1) that the papers created a valid sole and separate use trust for A; (2) that A and her husband had no power during the lifetime of the husband to convey the land in fee simple; (3) that by the acceptance of purchase money after her husband’s death she was estopped from asserting her title against IS.