Livingston v. Livingston
New York Court of Chancery
[ * 538 ] THE plaintiff, in May, 1809, married Eliza Oothout, who was seised in fee, in her own right, of a house and lot (No. 56) in Greenwich street. After the marriage, the plaintiff expended 2,500 dollars in repairs and improvements on the *house.
Read the full summary
[ * 538 ] THE plaintiff, in May, 1809, married Eliza Oothout, who was seised in fee, in her own right, of a house and lot (No. 56) in Greenwich street. After the marriage, the plaintiff expended 2,500 dollars in repairs and improvements on the *house. In April, 1814, the plaintiff and his wife agreed that he should purchase, in hername, another lot, and build ahouse thereon, and that the cost of erecting such new house should be paid out of the proceeds of the house and lot first mentioned, on a sale thereof for that purpose, to be made when the new house was completed. The bill stated, that…
1Opinion of the Court
*The Chancellor.
[ * 539 ]
I entertain no doubt of the fairness and equity of the agreement between the plaintiff' and his late wife, as stated in the bill, and proved by one of the witnesses. A husband and wife may contract, for a bona fide and valuable consideration, for a transfer of property from him to her. It was admitted as a clear point in the cáse of Lady Arundell v. Phipps, (10 Vesey, 146—149.) that a married woman, having separate property, may purchase, by the sale of it, other property, even of her husband, and have it limited to her separate use. Other authorities to the same…
2Cited by47 opinions
- Smithsonian Institution v. MeechSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Hendricks v. . IsaacsNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Darrier v. DarrierSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Cotton v. WoodSupreme Court of Iowa · 1868
- Walsh v. WalshMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.