GLENN ET AL.
v.
JOHNSON ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A husband's creditors sought to recover property conveyed to the husband's wife and improved with funds they alleged came from the husband's assets, claiming the conveyance was fraudulent. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision protecting the property as the wife's separate estate, holding that under Georgia law a wife's personal earnings and acquisitions are exempt from her husband's creditors regardless of whether those earnings funded improvements to property held in her name.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice FIELD stated the facts of the case; and delivered the opinion of the court, as follows:
It appears that.in July, 1863, one Thomas S..Powell conveyed to the trustee the property in question, for the alleged consideration of four thousand dollars; and'that subsequently, in 1867, buildings and other improvements were placed upon the property to the value of two thousand dollars, The deed recites that the consideration was paid by Mrs. Johnson, and declares that the property is conveyed to the trustee in trust for her. sole’and separate use, and is not to. be liablq for the debts or contracts of her husband.
The bill alleges, upon the belief of the complainants, that the consideration was paid, and the improvements were made, out of the funds of the husband, who, at the time the property was purchased," was greatly embarrassed by debts, and at the' time the improvements were made was wholly insolvent. . It, therefore, charges that the conveyance to the wife and the improvements "upon the property were made in. fraud .of the creditors of the husband, and prays that the conveyance may be declared fraudulent, and the property decreed to be sold and the-proceeds administered by the complainants.under the provisions of the Bankrupt Act; or, if the conveyance be not thus declared fraudulent, that the property be sold and the proceeds, to the extent of the value of thé improvements, be thus administered..
The husband, the wife, and the trustee separately answered the bill, and all averred, the husband and wife positively, and the trustee upon information and belief, that the consideration of the conveyance and the cost of the improvements were paid out of the earnings of the wife from her individual labor and business carried' on with the consent of her husband. The answers are under oath, and their averments in this particular were subsequently sustained by the testimony of the parties as well as by the testimony of other persons.
' The position of the complainants that this fact constitutes no defence to the suit, would be a sound one if the case were to be determined independently of the statute of Georgia. At common law, an agreement after marriage between husband and wife that the latter may carry on businéss on her own .account" and retain her earnings, is invalid as against his creditors, unless founded upon a valuable consideration; a voluntary agreement to that effect is only good as against him.*
But the statute of Georgia comes to the aid of the wife and protécts her separate earnings from his creditors. Section 1702, of the code of that State, whilst providing that all property given to the wife during the coverture, or acquired by her, shall vest in the husband, declares that “ any words iu the gift or bequest indicating a wish' for the personal enjoyment thereof by the wife, such as a gift to the wife by name, shall create a separate estate therein for her, and in no case shall the personal acquisitions of the wife be subject to the debts of the husband.”*
The earnings of the wife are thus placed beyond the reach of his creditors and of course of his assignees in bankruptcy.
Decree affirmed.
*
*
Code of Georgia in force in 1863, p.' 338, $$ 1701-2.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Bulk Carriers, Inc. v. United States, 183 F.2d 405 (2d Cir. 1950)…t they are probabilities in accord with the evidence and negative the contention that the Nash-bulk was then in extremis. Only when an emergency suddenly arises does the in ex-tremis doctrine apply. The Favorita, 18 Wall. 598, 603, 85 U.S. 598, 603, 21 L.Ed. 856; Publicover v. Alcoa S. S. Co., 2 Cir., 168 F. 2d 672; The Queen Elizabeth, 2 Cir., 122 F. 406, certiorari denied sub nom. Holmes v. The Queen Elizabeth, 190 U.S. 560, 23 S.Ct. 855, 47 L.Ed. 1184. Here-the situation which obtained at the moment th…
-
DELTA S.S. Lines, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 747 F.2d 995 (5th Cir. 1984)…tention damages cannot be awarded to Delta when Delta has avoided any actual lost profits through the use of substituted vessels from its fleet. Brooklyn, 287 U.S. 170, 53 [*1008] S.Ct. 103; see also The FAVORITA v. The Union Ferry Co., 85 U.S. 598, 21 L.Ed. 856 (1873); The CAYUGA v. Hoboken, Land & Improvement Co., 81 U.S. 270, 20 L.Ed. 828 (1871); Crain Brothers, Inc. v. Duquesne Slag Products Co., 273 F. 2d 948, 1960 A.M.C. 2415 (3d Cir.1959); Sinclair Refining Co. v. The AMERICAN SUN, 188 F. 2d 64 (2d C…
-
Atkins v. Ludvig Lorentzen, 328 F.2d 66 (5th Cir. 1964)…e knew that the ship was running aground by a change in vibrations in the engine room. The ship was in extremis. In such a situation a reduction in speed, contrary to the orders of the bridge, was excusable. See The Favorita, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 598, 21 L.Ed. 856. [*73] We hold that the Martha Anne failed to rebut the presumption of negligence arising from her sheer and failed to establish a statutory violation by the Ceara as a contributory cause of the collision. The judgment is affirmed. . IX Wigmore on…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence