« AnteriorContinuar »
Com. 433; Horne v. Memphis & 0. R. Co., form, without any words indicating an in1 Coldw. 72; Lucas v. Rickcrich, 1 Lea. tention to do so, has the effect in law, 728; Ables v. Ables, 86 Tenn. 333, 9 S. W. ex proprio vigore, to create a technical sep692; Jones v. Ducktown Sulphur, Copper arate estate in the wife. The facts neces& I. Co. 109. Tenn. 375, 71 S. W. 8231 sary to be stated are these: Complainants Brasfield v. Brasfield, 96 Tenn. 580, 36 J. H. Barnum, and defendant Clara S. BarS. W. 384.
num, are husband and wife, without issue of The deed of a married woman alone is their marriage. J. H. Barnum, on Decemvoid for all purposes, if this be a general ber 2, 1895, in consideration of an anteestate.
nuptial contract, conveyed to his wife, Clara Cope v. Meeks, 3 Head, 387; Ellis v. S. Barnum, certain valuable lands lying in Pearson, 104 Tenn. 591, 58. S. W. 318. Shelby county, near Memphis, the convey
Messrs. Frank P. Poston and J. W. ance being in the usual form, without any Canada for defendants.
words indicating an intention to create a
separate estate, reciting a consideration of Shields, J., delivered the opinion of the love and affection, and containing covecourt:
nants of seisin and general warranty. The question for determination in this Clara S. Barnum, without the consent or case is whether a conveyance of lands made joinder of her husband, J. H. Barnum, by a husband to his wife, in the usual November 7, 1902, conveyed by deed with at all. When equity recognizes a power in in the husband, and at his death pass to his the wife, who is the disabled party, not only representatives, except it should be parapherto deal with others, but even to contract with nalia and personal ornaments, suitable to the and make provision for her husband out of wife's condition, which the law, as against his her separate funds, it can hardly be claimed representatives, would allow her to retain. that the husband, who was always sui juris, In Mews v. Mews, 15 Beav. 529, the master of is restrained by any but technical rules from the rolls, in deciding against the wife's claim transferring to her directly. Equity will en to personal property on the evidence, said that force even such conveyances. But there never he entertained no doubt that there might be a was a time when he could not, by his deed, gift made by a man to his wife, which, though put property where she could control it. If it bad at law, would be supported in equity. But were not that by standing in her name he be he states that there must be some clear and came legally the owner of the usufruct, there distinct act by which the husband has devested could be no valid reason why any indirection himself of the property, and engaged to hold it ever need be resorted to. It is not against for the separate use of his wife. the policy of the law that the wife should have A deed of gift of a slave by a man to his the real benefit of his gift; and equity, looking wife is absolutely void at law. Tourney v. through the form at the substance, calls it, as Sinclair, 3 How. (Miss.) 324. The court says it is in fact, a gift from husband to wife. it did not profess to give her a separate prop
In Riehl v. Bingenheimer, 28 Wis. 86, there erty. It consequently vested an absolute right in is a dictum to the effect that a conveyance by the husband, and, unless he has devested himself a man directly to his wife is void at law. of the right, he must be entitled to recover
And, by way of argument, the court, in possession of the slave in the action of detinue Welch y. Welch, 63 Mo. 59, says at law gifts which he had instituted. from husband to wife are held to be entirely In a case where the man bought a leasehold void; but equity upholds some classes of gifts estate in the joint name of himself and wife, except where the ciaims of creditors might in the court held that it was void under the custerpose.
tom of London, saying that in his lifetime he So in Doe er dem. Abbott v. Hurd, 7 Blackf. had equal power to dispose of it as any other 510, the court, in considering the validity of a part of his personal estate ; and, further, that, trust deed, stated that a man cannot convey if he had taken it entirely in the name of his land immediately to his wife on account of the wife, then it would have been the estate of his legal unity of the parties, but he may convey it wife, and he might have disposed of it in his to trustees for her use.
lifetime equally as now. Coomes v. Elling, 3
Atk. 676. b. Gifts of personalty.
But the invalidity of gifts from husband to
wife difficult to maintain in practice. Under the old theory that a husband and
When she claimed small amounts of pin money, wife were in law one person, and that therefore and personal ornaments and wearing apparel, there could be no contracts or conveyances be
it seemed absurd to insist that she was not entween them, gifts of personalty were as ineffec
titled to them; and therefore the rule began to tual as transfers of real estate. There are some give way at this point very early. The first cases which have applied this theory with the exceptions to the rule were by courts of equity result of nullifying attempted gifts.
under the principles noticed in the next subIn Neufville v. Thomson, 3 Edw. Ch. 93, it
division of this note. But the distinction beit said at common law there cannot be a gift of tween law and equity has been abandoned, and chattels inter viros, from the husband to the
such gifts have for a long period been upheld, wife during coverture; for, being but one person
even by courts of law. in law, she cannot take independently of him ; In Slanning v. Style, 3 P. Wms. 334, the lord and, though there might be a declared gift and chancellor recognized the claim of a widow delivery to the wife, yet the title would remain against her husband's estate for money which
proper privy examination, for a valuable Complainant, as stated, contends that the consideration, a portion of these lands to defendant Clara S. Barnum had only a genthe defendant E. B. Le Master. Complain- eral estate in the lands; that by virtue of ant filed his bill November 14, 1902, char- his marital rights he has the right to the ging that Mrs. Barnum had only a general possession of them during their joint lives, estate in said lands, and could not sell and and that she cannot sell or convey them convey them without his joining in the during that period without his joining in conveyance, and that the deed made by the conveyance; and therefore the sale and her was void, and a cloud upon his marital conveyance made by her to E. B. Le Master rights in the premises. The prayer is that is a nullity, and a cloud upon his title. the conveyance be declared void, canceled, While the insistence of the defendant is and surrendered, and E. B. Le Master be that the conveyance to Mrs. Barnum, being enjoined from taking possession of the propone from husband to wife, by necessary imerty. This relief was granted by the chan- plication and operation of law created and cellor, and a decree pronounced in accord-vested in her a separate estate in the lands ance with the prayer of the bill, from which conveyed, notwithstanding the entire abthe defendants have appealed and assigned sence of any words evidencing such inten
tion, and which are necessary in transfers oi personal and conveyances of real prop- The reasons given in support of the rule erty by strangers to married women in or- as applied to personal property, the chief der to create such an estate; and that the of which is that the transfer is without conveyance made to E. B. Le Master vests beneficial effect, and abortive, unless a sepin him a valid title, free from any and all arate estate is vested, apply with equal claims of her husband. It has long been force to conveyances of lands. This fully the established rule in this state that trans- appears from a review of our cases involv. fers of personal property, made by a hus- ing sales and gifts of personal property by band to his wife without words to that ef- husbands to their wives. The earliest of fect, by implication and as a matter of these cases is that of Powell v. Powell, 9 law vests in the wife a technical separate Humph. 486, where a sale of four slaves, estate in the thing transferred; but we inade by Robt. Powell to his wife, Mary L. have no reported case involving a convey- Powell, for a valuable consideration, was in ance of real estate in which the doctrine issue. Judge Turley, for the court, in this has been invoked. We, however, can see
he had allowed her to receive out of sales of wife will not vest title in her, it amounts to a small produce from the farm, citing the unre- declaration of trust in her favor. Huntly v. ported case of Calmady v. Calmady, where an Huntly, 43 N. C. (8 Ired. Eq.) 250. agreement by which the husband permitted the A direct conveyance of slaves by a man to wife to retain a certain amount upon the renew- his wife in consideration of ner relinquishment als of their lease was upheld.
of dower will vest the property in her to her Jewels given by a man to his wife to wear separate use without words to that effect. upon her person constitute her paraphernalia, Powell v. Powell, 9 Humph. 480. The court which, in case he dies before her without having says, when the husband himself sells and condisposed of them, will belong to her ; but he may veys property to his wife for a valuable condispose of them during his lifetime. Graham v. sideration paid him out of her separate esLondonderry, 3 Atk. 393.
tate, there can be no intendment in favor of In Grant v. Grant, 34 Beav. 623, it is said his rights to the property thus conveyed, and that so far as gifts of chattels are concerned, it is absurd to talk about such conveyance beit is merely a question of evidence; and it can- ing against his common right, for it is imnot now be disputed that a husband may be a possible to hold with regard to intention that trustee for his wife.
a sale of property to a wife by the husband for In Graham y. Londonderry, 3 Atk. 393, the a valuable consideration to him out of her own court cites Cowper's Case to the effect that private estate can have any other design than personal property given by a man to his wife the separate use and benefit of the wife. The may be her separate estate.
husband parts from his interest by his convey. And when the statutes began to recognize a ance, and, if the operation of the conveyance separate personality in the wife the way was be to vest the property in the wife for his use already paved for the courts to hold that gifts and benefit, and he be immediately remitted to of personalty from her husband were effectual all his original rights, then is the whole transto vest the property in her.
action a farce, and the law, in permitting such So that now it has been repeatedly neld that contracts, bas placed itself in a very ridiculous husband and wife may assign and transfer position. personal property directly to each other. Dean And the rule recognizing the validity of the v. Metropolitan Elev. R. Co. 119 N. Y. 540, 23 transfer has been extended to uphold gifts of N. E. 1054; Whiton v. Snyder, 88 N. Y. 304 ; notes and bonds, and to enforce notes executed Armitage v. Mace, 96 N. Y. 538.
by the husband in favor of the wife. At common law a man may make a gift of In Re Murray, 9 Ont. App. Rep. 374, Reverspersonal property to his wife. Cottrell V. ing 29 Grant, Ch. (U. C.) 443, a gift by a Spiess, 23 Mo. App. 35.
man to his wife of promissory notes was upheld. A gift of personal property by a man to his A note representing a portion of the proceeds wife will be upheld without the aid of the mar- of homestead real estate may be made the ried woman's acts. Kelly v. Campbell, 1 Keyes, scparate property of the wife by the consent 30.
of the husband. Ogden v. Giddings, 15 Tex. A man may transfer a bank account to his 483. wife by gilt. Re Helmes, 79 App. Div. 264, A gift of a note by a man to his wife may be 79 N. Y. Supp. 592, Afirmed in 176 N. Y. 603, effected by directing the note to be made pay68 N. E. 1118.
able to her, and delivering it into her possesA conveyance of personal property directly sion. Reed v. Reed, 52 N. Y. 651. to the wife is binding upon the grantor. De A note executed by a man to his wife in conGarca v. Galvan, 55 Tex. 53.
sideration of money belonging to her separate In McWilliams v. Ramsay, 23 Ala. 813, it is estate is euforceable against his estate. Hall said that gifts of personalty by a man to his v. Ilall, 52 Tex. 294, 36 Am. Rep. 725. wife are supported upon the presumption that Eyuity will enforce a note executed by a man he intended it to be for her separate use.
to his wife during coverture on consideration The wife may take title to a chattel by gift of her moneys received or collected by him. from her husband. Armitage v. Mace, 16 McCampbell v. McCampbell, 2 Lea, 664, 31 Am. Jones & S. 108.
Rep. 623. Although a deed of slaves by a man to his But in Fourth Ecclesiastical Soc. v. Mather,
case says: “We have seen that though, by no reason why a distinction should be made the common law, a married woman could in this respect between transfers of person- not have and hold property to her separate al property and conveyances of real estate.' use, yet equity has so far qualified this as 15 Conn. 587, it was held that during cover- conveyances, both of real and personal estate. ture no agreement could be made between hus- McKenzie v. Ohio River R. Co. 27 W. Va. 306; band and wife which in legal effect would trans- Ex parte Wells, 3 Desauss. Eq. 158 ; Williams v. fer to the wife the title to a note representing Avery, 38 Ala. 115 ; Pennsylvania Salt Mfg. Co. the proceeds of her real estate.
v. Neel, 54 Pa. 9; Thompson v. Allen, 103 Pa. And in Glass v. Burt, 8 Ont. Rep. 391, it | 44, 49 Am. Rep. 116; Reagle v. Reagle, 179 was held that a bond given by a man to his wife Pa. 89, 36 Atl. 191 ; Humphrey v. Spencer, 36 for the payment of money to her by his execu- W. Va. 11, 14 S. E. 410; Cosner v. McCrum, 40 tors cannot be upheld in law or in equity, since, W. Va. 339, 21 S. E. 739; Putnam v. Bicknell, being an imperfect gift, it cannot be beneficially | 18 Wis. 334 ; Hannan v. Oxley, 23 Wis. 519; enforced, and it cannot be regarded as a dec- Wheeler & W. Mfg. Co. v. Monahan, 63 Wis. laration of trust.
198, 23 N. W. 127 ; Albright v. Albright, 70 Wis. A woman claining personal property as a 528, 36 N. W. 254; Herr's Appeal, 6 Law Rep. gift from her husband must establish a clear 408. and satisfactory case. Walter v. Hodge, 2 A gift of a note by a husband to his wife may Swanst. 98, Wils. Ch. 445.
be rendered effective in equity. Wood v. WardAnd in Finch v. Finch, L. R. 23 Ch. Div. 20 Ohio, 518. 267, it was held that a claim to chattels cannot Equity will sustain gifts of slaves though be maintained on the unsupported testimony no trustee is named. Eddins v. Buck, 23 Ark. of the claimant.
507. So in Moore v. Moore, L. R. 18 Eq. 474, an And a deed from husband to wife is not void atteinpted gift of stock failed because of failure if good in equity. Bedell's Appeal, 87 Pa. 510. to have a transfer made on the books.
In Barron v. Barron, 24 Vt. 375, it is said
that courts of equity have for more than a cenIl. In equity.
tury disregarded the rule that conveyances by
a man to his wife were void, and for many a. Conveyances upheld.
purposes treat husband and wife as distinct
parties capable of contracting with each other As noticed in the preceding subdivision, and of having separate estates. And as courts of equity at an early date began to ig- general rule whenever the contract would be nore the unity of husband and wife, and to sup- good at law when made with trustees for the port gifts of personal property from husband wife that contract will be sustained in equity to wife if the circumstances were such as to when made with each other without the aid of call for equitable intervention. So that in a trustee. Waiter y. Hodge, 2 Swanst. 97, Wils. Ch. 445, Equity, which looks more to the substance it is stated that in equity exceptions are intro
than to the form, holds that a conveyance diduced to the rule that a man cannot give prop- rectly from the husband to the wife, if fair and erty to his wife, such as cases of paraphernalia, free from sigus of fraud, is just as valid as if trinkets, or savings of piu money.
the conveyance had been made to a trustee for There are species of allowance to the wife by the benefit of the wife. Sayers v. Wall, 26 the husband which may be classed under the Gratt. 373, 21 Am. Rep. 303. head of pin money. It is where he permits the Equity may sustain a conveyance by a man wife to have and make of certain articles of his to his wife of real estate for her suitable mainproperty, either for her owu use, or in consid
tenance. Shepard v. Shepard, 7 Johns. Ch. 57, eration of her supplying the family with partic- 11 Am. Dec. 396 ; Strong v. Skinner, 4 Barb. ular kinds of necessaries, or when he makes 552 ; Simmons v. McElwain, 26 Barb. 419. to her a yearly allowance for keeping his house. Equity will sustain a conveyance from a man The profits in the first case and the savings in to his wife when a proper case is made out. the other will, in equity, be considered as the Fritz v. Fritz, 23 Ind. 388. wife's separate estate. Kee v. Vasser, 37 N. C. Equity will uphold a deed if supported by (2 ired. Eq.) 553.
ad iate considerations. Brown V. Brown, But the exception to the rule was not long 79 Fun, 44, 29 N. Y. Supp. 652. limited to the matters mentioned in that case. In Garlick v. Strong, 3 Paige, 440, it is and equity extended its power over all kinds of
said that it is well settled that a postnuptial
to permit her to take and enjoy property to , band's right. This is unquestionably the her separate use, when it is given to her to law in relation to gifts, devises, or settlethat intent. But equity has done this with ments made in favor of married women by timidity, for it holds that each claim on the third persons, and perhaps to gifts and volpart of a married woman, being against untary settlements made after marriage by common right, and it being a presumption the husband, though that is not so clear. of law that all property of which she be. But is this principle applicable to the cases comes the owner is her husband's, a trust of purchases made by the wife from the husby which it is to be secured to her separate band for a good and valuable consideration use free from his marital rights should paid him by her out of her estate which has very distinctly express that intention. It, already been settled to her separate use and however, holds it to be immaterial in what maintenance ? I think not, because, in the form or phrase a trust of that nature is first place, the reason why such direct exdescribed, technical language not being pression of intention is regarded when gifts deemed necessary, and it only being re are made to the wife, as we have just seen, quired that the intention of the gift shall is because, in contemplation of law, all appear manifestly to be for the wife's sep- gifts of property to the wife are gifts to the arate enjoyment, and in bar of the hus. husband, and that any other intendment is
agreement between the husband and wife, by The equitable title of a promissory note given which property is set apart to her separate use, by a husband to his wife vests in her. Tullis will be sustained , in equity.
v. Fridley, 9 Minn. 79, Gil. 68. And that case was followed in Searing v. Under a deed of real estate from husband to Searing, 9 Paige, 284, and Jaycox v. Caldwell, wife, although the legal title remains in him 37 llow. Pr. 240.
the beneficial use will vest in her as her sepTlie voidness at law of a deed directly from a arate estate, which, upon her death, will de. man to his wife does not interfere with equi. scend to her heirs. Cotton v. Brown, 3 Ky. table rights which may grow out of such in L. Rep. 679. strument, they being capable, in equity, of be An attempted partition deed by which a man ing considered two persons. Peck v. Brown, 26 conveys his interest in the common property to How. Pr. 350.
his wife, though inoperative at law, in equity Equity should be very reluctant to disturb has the effect of constituting a trust of the in favor of collateral heirs of the husband, a legal estate remaining in him in favor of his conveyance mutually satisfactory to both hus wife. Davisson v. Sage, 20 Grant, Ch. (U. C.) band and wife. Wells v. Wells, 35 Miss. 638. 115.
In Rose v. Latshaw, 90 Pa. 238, it is said The evident intention of a man who conveys that gifts and conveyances by a man to his real estate to his wife and her heirs, to their wife have long been sustained in equity, and sole and only use forever, may be given effect that in Pennsylvania a wife's equitable rights by a court of equity, so far as the beneficial have been maintained in equity in actions at interest is concerned, so as to vest the equi. law, for rules in equity and of law are enforce table title to the property in her. Whitebead able in the same form of procedure.
v. Whitehead, 14 Ont. Rep. 621. In equity gifts to the separate use of a mar If the conveyance is not a fraud on creditors, ried woman-as well those presented by her and is a reasonable provision for the wife, it husband as those given by third persons, which will be upheld. Babcock v. Eckler, 24 N. Y. are without the intervention of trustees ex 023. pressly named — will be protected in cases In Kent v. Kent, 20 Ont. Rep. 158, the court where they have been made in good faith, and says there is reason for upholding cases of the rights of creditor's not infringed. benefaction between husband and wife where the Neuiville v. Thomson, 3 Edw. Ch. 92.
transfer, being complete and apt for the purA gift by a man to his wife will be upheld | pose, fails of full effect only because of the legal when the rights of creditors are not in ques and technical unity of giver and taker, which tion. Borst v. Spelman, 4 N. Y. 284.
does not exist between strangers or others not In Lane v. Union Nat. Bank, 75 Ill. App. 299, so related when the gift or transfer is found it is stated that a deed from husband to wife to be inherently imperfect, or incomplete. And is good as against all the world except credi the court concludes that, so far as form and tor's.
substance go, that which would be good at law In Ogden v. Walters, 12 Kan. 282, the court if made by a stranger is good in equity if made says: We suppose a married man may convey by husband to wife. real estate directly to his wife where it is And that case was affirmed in 20 Ont. Rep. right and equitable that he should do so, and 445. where the conveyance does not interfere with the rights and equities of third persons. Such b. Conditions upon which conveyances are upa deed, though void at law, is good in equity.
held. And the same statement is repeated in Sproul v. Atchison Nat. Bank, 22 Kan. 336.
Not every attempted conveyance by a man to The principle to be deduced from the English his wife will be uplield in equity. That court cases is that when a husband makes a deed of has certain well-defined principles upon which land to his wife which would have been opera it administers relief, and a wife coming before tive to pass the title had it been made to a it to establish title to property which she stranger the court will support it by declaring claims to have received from her husband must him to be a trustee of the land for his wife. bring her case within these principles. Kent v. Kent, 20 Ont. Rep. 445.
Conveyances by a man to his wife are not
in violation of his rights. But such is not mediately remitted to all of his original the case when he himself sells and conveys | rights, then is the whole transaction a farce property to his wife for a valuable consider and the law, in permitting such contracts, ation paid him out of her separate estate. has placed itself in a very ridiculous posiIn such case there is and can be no intend- tion." ment in favor of his rights to the property In McCampbell v. McCampbell, 2 Lea, thus conveyed, and it is absurd talk 664, 31 Am. Rep. 623, the court, citing with about such a conveyance being against his approval the Powell Case, says: "A concommon right; for it is impossible to hold, sideration passing from the wife will sus. with regard to intention, that a sale of tain a direct conveyance of the property by property to the wife by the husband for a the husband to her and the very nature of valuable consideration, paid him out of her the transaction will fix the property, even if own private estate, can have any other de personalty, with a trust for the separate sign than the separate use and benefit of the use of the wife, without any words to that wife. The husband parts from his interest effect.” by his conveyance, and, if the operation of In Sherron v. Hall, 4 Lea, 500, it is said: the conveyance be to vest the property in the “But the gift was, in effect, as if the huswife for his benefit and use, and he be im- band, for a valuable consideration, had
only void at law, but equity will exercise a the husband's property; and the transfer must sound discretion as to whether or not they will not interfere with the rights of creditors. be upheld in that form. Bunch v. Bunch, 26 Hindian v. Parkis, 33 Conn. 197. Ind. 400.
So, in order to support a gift by a man to his As said in Elliott v. Elliott, 21 N. C. (1 Dev. wife, there must be an unequivocal act by which & B. Eq.) 57, since the conveyance is void the husband devests himself of the property at law the case in equity must always be that and places it at the disposal of the wife. Hoyes of an application to aid a defective conveyance. v. Kindersley, 2 Smale & G. 195. The wife cannot have that assistance unless Therefore in order to place the title to the she shows herself to be meritorious, and shows, proceeds of the farm in the wife there must further, a clear intention that what was done be proof of an unequivocal, complete, and final should have the effect of devesting the interest intention on the part of the husband to constiof the husband and creating a separate estate tute himself a trustee for his wife. Whittaker in her which she should have the immediate v. Whittaker, L. R. 21 Ch. Div. 657. power to dispose of as she chose, and that the To uphold a gift by a man to his wife nothestate was but a reasonable provision for her. ing else will do than a clear, irrevocable gift
ln Loomis v. Brush, 36 Mich. 40, it was either to some person as a trustee, or by some stated that it is well settled that a quitclaim clear and definite act of the husband by which deed from husband to wife is of no more valid he devested bimself of his property, and enity as an actual conveyance in equity than at gaged to hold it as a trustee for the separate law, and, in order to work out any equity, there use of his wife. And the court held that the must be a clear right working out of matters evidence was not sufficient to raise an issue. independent of the deed, as well as some further M'Lean v. Longlands, 5 Ves. Jr. 71. conveyance or release calculated to carry it Another rule is that the man must not iminto eflect
as agreement or obligation. poverish himself. It is against public policy There can be no ground for claiming that a to permit a man to devest himself of his prop. deed absolutely void at law when made is
erty so as to create the possibility of his bevalidated as a conveyance by the subsequent coming a public charge. laws which enable married women to take and A settlement by a man of his whole estate enjoy property as if sole. While courts will, upon his wife will not be upheld. O'Doherty v. under peculiar circumstances, carry out a pur. Ontario Bank, 32 U. C. C. P. 299. pose which has failed by reason of the in
A gift of real estate by a man to his wife capacity of the wife to accept the deed from her
will be upheld in equity if the transaction aphusband, the case must be plain and the equity pears to have been fair, and to amount to no manifest.
more than a reasonable provision for the wife's Although tbis note is not intended to deal
maintenance and support. Wilder V. Brooks, with the rights of creditors, it may be stated
10 Minn. 50, 88 Am. Dec. 50, Gil. 32. that no conveyance will be upheld which will
An assignment by a man of a deed in which operate as a fraud upon their rights. More
he is named as grantee to his wife and her over, the intent to make the gift must be
heirs after his death has no legal operation in clearly made out, for courts of equity require clear and incontrovertible evidence to estab
favor of the wife, and it will not be enforced in lish gifts between husband and wife. Keniston
equity, where the subject-matter of the grant v. Keniston, 56 Vt. 080.
was the principal or chief part of his estate. The fact of the gift must be clearly proved.
Benedict v. Montgomery, 7 Watts & S. 238, Shuttleworth v. Winter, 55 N. Y. 624.
42 Am. Dec. 230. In a case in which the attack on the con
But a conveyance of real estate by a man to veyance was made by a creditor, the court said, his wife will be upheld in equity, although it is equity examines transfers by husband to wife not stated to be for the purpose of her maintewith great caution before it will confirm them. nance and support. Hunt v. Johnson, 44 N. Y. They must be fair and certain; it must be 27. 4 Am. Rep. 631. The court distinguishes clearly and satisfactorily shown that the pur White v. Wager, 25 N. Y. 328, and Winans v. pose is a provision for the wife; the property Peebles, 32 N. Y. 423, on the ground that in must be distinctly separated from the mass of those cases the conveyances were from the wife