Skip to main content
· 1/7/1886

Perry v. Ruby

Citations

  • 81 Va. 317
  • 1886 Va. LEXIS 99

Syllabus

<p>1. Post-nuptial settlement^!. /. voluntary—Burden of proof.— Post-nuptial settlements are presumed to be voluntary, and the burden of showing that they were made upon valuable consideration is upon those claiming under them. Where the bill charges them to be voluntary the answer does not shift the burden, and is not evidence for the respondents; but the defence must be proved. Hatcher v. Crews, 78 Va. 460.</p> <p>2. Idem—Evidence—Becitals.—Recital in post-nuptial settlement of an agreement, duly executed as the consideration of the deed, is evidence against persons claiming under the settler, but not against a creditor of the settler contesting the validity of the deed. Blow v. Maynard, 2 Leigh, 29.</p> <p>3. Husband and wipe—Incompetent witnesses.—Where husband and wife are both parties and interested in the result of suit, neither is a competent witness. Burton v. Mill, 78 Va. 468.</p> <p>4. Case at bar.—In 1871 P. sold his wife’s maiden land, and she joined in the conveyance, which contained no intimation of any settlement agreed then or thereafter to be made in consideration thereof on Mrs. P. Nine years afterwards P. had become much indebted, and executed a deed conveying to his wife certain real estate, reciting as the consideration 85,250 derived from the sale of his wife’s maiden land, which was made with the express understanding that an equivalent was to be settled on her as and for a home. The evidence does not satisfactorily show that the settlement was made in consideration of her joining in the conveyance of her maiden land. The period between the conveyance and the settlement is such as to negative any presumption of such an agreement. And the contract, if it had been proved, is a parol contract for land, and hence void under statute of frauds. Blow v. Maynard, 2 Leigh, 29.</p> <p>•5. Cases reviewed and compared.— Wm. and M. College v. Powell, 12 Gratt. 372, presents a ease where the settlement on its face purported to be in consideration of the wi

Judges: Richardson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.