Knight v. Paxton

Citations

• 124 U.S. 552
• 8 S. Ct. 592
• 31 L. Ed. 518
• 1888 U.S. LEXIS 1894

Syllabus

<p>An ante-nuptial settlement was excuted prior to 1867, by which J. M. conveyed to his brother T. M., land' in Illinois, in trust for his intended wife, for her life, and in case of her death leaving a child or children, to such child or children, and in case of her death without a child, then to S. M.</p> <p>' and O. Tj. for life, with remainder to J. M. and his heirs. In May, 1867, J. M., S. M., and O. L. joined in conveying the premises to the wife for the purpose of determining the trust and vesting their respective rights under the settlement in her absolutely. In 1872 J. M. and the wife joined in a trtist deed of the premises, in the nature of a mortgage, to secure the payment of a debt of the husband. The trust deed purported to be acknowledged by the husband and wife; but after foreclosure and sale, the husband and wife, being in possession of the premises, set up as against the purchaser, that the wife had never acknowledged it, and that by reason thereof she had never parted with the homestead right in the premises secured to her by the law of Illinois. The purchaser filed this bill in equity, to have the wife’s homestead right set off to her on a division, or, if the property was incapable of division, to have it discharged of it on the payment into court of $1000.. Held. :</p> <p>(1) That, without deciding the eft'ect of the birth of a child, after the deed of May, 1867, as a restraint-upon the alienation of the fee, the trust deed of 1872, under the Illinois statute of March 27,1869, respecting deeds of femes covert, operated to convey the life estate of the wife to the grantee, and that no acknowledgment was necessary to its validity.</p> <p>■ (2) That, the master having reported that the property could not be divided, the complainant was entitled to the possession of the whole premises, under the laws of Illinois, upon payment into court of • $1000.</p>