Bouknight v. Epting

Citations

• 11 S.C. 71
• 1878 S.C. LEXIS 44

Syllabus

<p>1. E. E., in 1832, and after her marriage, acquired by purchase a tract of land; afterwards her husband contracted debts which fell due in 1859, upon which a judgment was obtained against him in 1869. Held, that Section 8, Article XIV., of the state constitution of 1868, was not intended to act retrospectively upon the rights of the husband in such land, and that his interest therein might be sold under such judgment.</p> <p>2. Were such intention manifest, a construction to that effect could not be given, as it would violate that provision of the constitution of the United States which forbids a state from passing any law impairing the obligation of a contract, inasmuch as the husband, prior to the adoption of the constitution of 1868, had a vested interest in the lands of which his wife was seized during coverture.</p> <p>3. Where a deed is made in consideration of money paid by J. C., and conveys lands to “ J. C. for his daughter E., wife of G. E.,” to have and to hold, &c., “ unto said E. E., her heirs and assigns forever,” the use is executed, and the legal estate vested in E. E. under the operation of the statute of uses.</p> <p>4. The terms of such deed are not sufficient to create a separate estate in E. E., a married woman.</p> <p>5. Where a complete legal estate in the wife’s lands had become vested in the husband prior to the adoption of the constitution of 1868, such constitution did not operate as a settlement of such lands upon the wife.</p> <p>6. Thomas v. Sheppard, 2 McG. Oh. 36, approved.</p>