Hawthorne v. Beckwith

Citations

• 89 Va. 786
• 17 S.E. 241
• 1893 Va. LEXIS 105

Syllabus

<p>1. Ees Judioata—Side in Shelly’s Case.—Where a court below construed a will as giving a life estate (the said rule not applying to executory limitations), and the construction, on appeal, was not drawn in question, but was approved by the appellate court, the question as to what estate passed by the will is res judicata, and the fact that the remaindermen were not parties to that suit is immaterial. This is on the ground of representation. Baylor v. Dejarnette, 13 Gratt. 152.</p> <p>2. Life Tenants—Money borrowed.—On giving proper security therefor, life tenants took the fund in which they had a life interest.</p> <p>Held :</p> <p>They took it as-borrowers, not as trustees, and their estates and the sureties on their bonds are liable therefor.</p> <p>3. Estoppel.—Where the validity of the limitation over in the will was recognized in the former appeal, in requiring new security from the life tenants, at the instance of those claiming as remaindermen, it cannot be claimed that the limitation was void for remoteness.</p> <p>4. Husband—Liability—Wife’s debt.—A judgment against the husband during coverture for the wife’s ante-nuptial debts is necessary under .the common law rule to charge him therewith.</p>