McDearman v. Hodnett
Citations
- 83 Va. 281
- 2 S.E. 643
- 1887 Va. LEXIS 64
Syllabus
<p>1. Parent and Child—Advancements—Evidence.—A gift unexplained in the lifetime of an intestate father, to one of his children, is prima facie an advancement. His statements at the time, or subsequently, are competent evidence to show what was his intention. Watkins v. Young, 31 Gratt. 84.</p> <p>2. Idem—Son-in-law.—And so, such a gift to a son-in-law is prima facie an advancement to the daughter.</p> <p>3. Married Women-—Advancements.—The married women’s act, (Acts 1876-77, p. 333,) does not affect the question of advancements.</p>
Judges: Richardson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
6 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Roberts v. ColemanWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1892-12-03· cited 55×
- Trotman v. TrotmanSupreme Court of Virginia· 1927-09-29· cited 18×
- Rowe v. RoweCourt of Appeals of Virginia· 1925-12-17· cited 14×
- Ireland v. DyerSupreme Court of Georgia· 1910-02-21· cited 4×
- Harrison's v. Harrison'sSupreme Court of Virginia· 1938-10-07
- Ratliff v. MeadeSupreme Court of Virginia· 1945-09-05
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.