Chapman v. Price

Citations

• 83 Va. 392
• 11 S.E. 879
• 1886 Va. LEXIS 3

Syllabus

<p>1. Curtesy&emdash;Common law&emdash;Legal estates&emdash;Equitable.&emdash;At common law, in grant of estate of inheritance to married woman, husband’s right to curtesy could not be excluded. And the same as to equitable estates.</p> <p>2. Idem&emdash;Wife’s separate estate.&emdash;But as to married woman’s “separate estate,” the same may be so limited as to give her the inheritance and to exclude the husband from the curtesy.</p> <p>3. Idem&emdash;Jus disponendi&emdash;Marital rights.-&emdash;The power of alienation by deed inter vivos, or by will, is an incident to the “separate estate,” and, if not expressly or impliedly restricted, always exists in the married woman just as if she were sole ; and if exercised, effectually excludes husband’s rights by curtesy or otherwise. Si non, non.</p> <p>4. Idem&emdash;Case at bar.&emdash;In grant by parents of an estate of inheritance in lands to married daughter occurs the following habendum: “To have and to hold in her own right, free from any claims or demands from her husband, or any person claiming under, through or against him in any way, now or at any time hereafter.” Afterwards, the wife by her will devised the land to her children, and died leaving her husband her surviving. His creditors brought their bill to subject his supposed curtesy in the land to his debts.</p> <p>Held :</p> <p>The terms of the devise created a separate estate in the wife with power of alienation, which she exercised, and thereby excluded her husband and all claiming under him from all claim on the land.</p>