Skip to main content

Full text of "Dower. Divorce. Conveyance in Fraud of Dower or Alimony"

See other formats


STOP 



Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 
purposes. 

Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early- 
journal-content . 



JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 
contact support@jstor.org. 



374 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW 

same reasons a contract of employment as long as the employee does 
faithful work has been held valid. 8 

Nor is an agreement by which one person obtains permanent 
employment from another deemed to be against public policy, merely 
because it has the effect of restraining the servant from engaging in 
business as long as he continues in the employment. 9 And it has 
been held that an agreement by which one person agrees to serve 
another for the term of his natural life, in the same occupation, is 
not invalid as being in restraint of trade, such a contract merely 
limiting the servant's action in respect to the manner of following 
the occupation. 10 But such contract must be by deed. 11 It is, how- 
ever, submitted that this proposition, though based on high author- 
ity, must at the present day be regarded as open to question, 12 
since in substance such a situation amounts to slavery, which is 
illegal. 

W. G. S. 



Dower — Divorce — Conveyance in Fraud of Dower or Ali- 
mony — The courts of equity will protect a spouse against a volun- 
tary conveyance by the other which will result at law in the exclu- 
sion of marital rights, if made pending an engagement of marriage, 
without the other's knowledge prior to the marriage, even in the 
absence of express misrepresentation or deceit, and whether the one 
attempted to be deprived had knowledge of the existence of the 
property or not. "The concealment of what it is the right of the 

330 (1895); Usher v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., supra, note 1; Pierce v. 
Tenn., etc., R. Co., 173 U. S. 1 (1808) ; but see St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. 
v. Mathews, 64 Ark. 398 (1897), in which it was held that an agreement 
between employer and employee that the latter should not be discharged 
without cause, there being no agreement on the part of the employee to 
serve for any specified time, was not enforceable on the ground that the 
agreement of both parties is necessary to fix the duration of a contract of 
service. 

8 L. & N. R Co. v. Offutt, 99 Ky. 427 (1896). 

9 Camig v. Carr, 167 Mass. 544 (1897)- 

10 MacDonell, Master & Servant (2nd Ed.), page 29; Wald's Pollock on 
Contracts (3rd Ed.), page 481; Wallis v. Day, 2 M. & W. 273 (Eng. 1837) ; 
see Carnig v. Carr, supra, note 9. Under the Civil Codes of France and 
Quebec a contract to serve for an unlimited period is invalid. French Civil 
Code, Art. 1780; Quebec Civil Code, Art. 1667. In some jurisdictions the 
length of the term for which a servant may lawfully engage himself has 
been specifically fixed by the legislature. British Columbia Rev. Stat. (1897), 
chap. 121 (Master and Servant Act), §2; California Civil Code, 1980; Louis- 
iana Civil Code, Arts. 167, 168 (160, 161) ; Manitoba Rev. Stat. (1902, Masters 
and Servants Act); Ontario Rev. Stat. (1897), chap. 157 (Master and 
Servant Act), §2. 

"Viner's Abridgment, 323, Master & Servant, n. (5). 
"Davies v. Davies, 58 L. T. 209 (Eng;. 1888). 



NOTES 375 

one to know and the duty of the other to disclose, is itself a fraud 
in law." 1 The American jurisdictions have adopted this rule, prac- 
tically without exception, in declaring that such conveyances are 
void as to the husband's rights in the wife's property, and as to the 
wife's right to dower, either inchoate or presently accrued by sur- 
vival. 2 England, however, restricted the application of the rule to 
such conveyances made by the wife, 3 refusing the reciprocal right 
to the wife upon the ground that a woman's marriage operated as 
a gift to her husband of all the property, not settled to her separate 
use, of which she was then possessed; but that she acquired no 
rights in his property, as such, except the inchoate right to dower 
in the property of which he was actually seised during the cover- 
ture. 4 

That declarations for the protection of dower rights, inchoate 
or present, is the full extent to which the courts will go in declaring 
this class of voluntary conveyances to be void is laid down in Deke 
v. Huenkenwier, 5 where the complainant asked that a deed of certain 
realty executed just prior to the marriage, and without the knowl- 
edge of the fiancee, by the husband, without consideration, to a 
daughter by a former marriage, be set aside upon the grounds of 
(i) fraud upon her inchoate right of dower, and (2) that, in the 
event of her husband abandoning her she would become entitled to 
separate maintenance, or divorce with alimony, in either of which 
instances she would suffer injury to her "marital rights" in that 
his estate, which would form the basis of computing the amount 
then due her, and to which it would attach, is diminished. After 

'Chandler v. Hollingsworth, 3 Del. Ch. 99 (1867). 

2 Cameron on Dower, 266, 267; 2 Bishop on Married Women, 353; Petty 
v. Petty, 43 Ky. (4 B. Mon.) 215 (1843); Swaine v. Perine, 5 Johns. Ch. 
482 (N. Y. 1821) ; Cranson v. Cranson, 4 Mich. 230 (1856) ; Smith v. Smith, 
2 Halst. Ch. 515. (N. J. 1847). 

South Carolina stands almost alone in declaring such deeds absolutely 
void and decreeing reconveyances, Brooks v. McMeekin, 37 S. C. 285 (1892) ; 
while the majority view is represented by the ruling of the Kentucky courts, 
as laid down in Petty v. Petty, supra, "To decree that the deeds be an- 
nulled entirely, would be to carry the relief beyond any possible legal in- 
terest or claim that the wife has or may ever have; ... a useless act, 
by which she might never be benefited, as she might die first." 

3 Park on Dower, 236; Strathmore v. Bowes, 1 Ves. Jr. 22 (Eng. 1789); 
Swannock v. Lyford, Co. Lit. 208 a. n. 1 ; Banks v. Sutton, 2 P. Wms. 700 
(Eng. 1732) ; nor was it confined to instances of where the husband knew 
of the property, Goddard v. Snow, I Russ. 485 (Eng. 1826). 

4 Lush, Husband and Wife, 89; Strathmore v. Bowes, supra. However, 
earlier writers refer to the wife as having the right to the protection of 
equity in such cases, Gilbert, Lex Pret. 267. But the later writers and cases 
have shown the settled rule to the contrary, so decidedly contrary in fact 
that in Banks v. Sutton, supra, we find the court saying "And if this (de- 
feating of dower) were the express purpose, it is an additional reason for 
allowing it to have that effect." 

• 102 N. E. Rep. 1059 (HI 1913). 



376 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW 

ruling that the deed was void as to her inchoate right of dower the 
court said: "Even if the appellant's contentions were sustained and 
the deed should be set aside and the title reinvested in her husband, 
we do not see how it could be kept in him without enjoining him 
from future transfers of it" in order to protect her rights to ali- 
mony, separate maintenance, and the like. "It would be absurd to 
ask a court of equity, at the suit of a wife, to enjoin her husband 
from mortgaging or selling his real estate, on the ground that the 
wife might in some possible contingency want to file a bill for 
separate maintenance and for alimony against him and that the land 
would be required to satisfy the decree." 

While the authorities expressly in point are few, 6 yet they agree 
with the principal case upon the ground that dower is a vested, 
though inchoate right arising immediately upon the marriage, and in 
the main not to be precluded except by her act or with her con- 
sent ; whereas the rights to alimony or separate maintenance are 
highly contingent and problematic, dependent first upon a violation 
of the marital relations by the husband, and finally upon obtaining 
a judicial decree allowing the same, and to defeat which many 
things may arise. 

However, where those rights are no longer contingent but have 
been ascertained before the bringing of the bill to set aside such 
voluntary conveyances in fraud of marital rights, equity in grant- 
ing the bill will also provide for the protection of them in addition 
to dower. 7 

/. C. A. 



Employers' Liability Act — When Suit Must Be Brought 
— An employer's liability has always been a fruitful source of dis- 
cussion and has been productive of a vast amount of legislation, 
judicial as well as otherwise. The North Carolina courts have added 
a new twist to the federal Employers' Liability Act l by their inter- 
pretation of the section 2 limiting the time within which an action 
must be brought. In Burnett v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. 3 the 
court held that though this section of the act says, "that no action 
shall be maintained under this act unless commenced within two 
years from the day the cause of action accrued," nevertheless 
since the law "confers no new right and is operative only to with- 

e American cases cited in the notes above. 

'Decree for separate maintenance granted, Fahey v. Fahey, 43 Colo. 354 
(1908) ; and decree of divorce and alimony already granted, Goff v. Goff, 
60 W. Va. 9 (1906). 

*Act April 22, 1908, c. 149, 35 Stat. 65. [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, 
p. 1322-] 

"§6. 

"79 S. E. Rep. 414 (N. C. 1913).