Hughes-Hallett v. Hughes-Hallett

Citations

• 152 Pa. 590
• 26 A. 101
• 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1022

Syllabus

<p>[Marked to be reported.]</p> <p>Ante-muptial contract — Separate use and spendthrift trust.</p> <p>Plaintiff and defendant prior to their marriage entered into an agreement which provided “ that if during the said intended coverture, Miss Schaumburg shall separate herself and live separate from Col. HughesHallett, without reasonable cause, then and during such period of any and every such separation as may occur after Miss Schaumburg shall have derived from her aunt, Emily Page, as accession of property yielding her an income of not less than 1,000 pounds a year, the said trustee or trustees for the time being of these present, shall pay to Col. Hughes-Hallett one-third part of the income of the said presently acquired property.” The expression “ presently acquired property,” was defined as being “ all the real and personal property whatsoever, whether in possession, reversion, remainder or expectancy, which immediately before the solemnization of the said intended marriage, Miss Schaumburg shall be seized or possessed of, or entitled to, or empowered by deed absolutely to dispose of.” Several years after the date of the agreement the aunt referred to in it died, leaving property in trust for the sole and separate use of defendant. It also appeared that prior to the date of the agreement other relatives had left property to defendant for her “ sole and separate use and benefit, and not liable to execution, attachment or sequestration for any debts or liabilities whatsoever.” Held, that no portion of the property included in these trusts came within the description of “ presently acquired property,” as set forth in the marriage settlement. Besides, they were valid and subsisting trusts for sole and separate use, and therefore beyond the control of the parties to the ante-nuptial contract.</p>