Wickes v. Clarke
New York Court of Chancery
The complainants were creditors of the defendant, Peter Clarke, by judgment recovered on the twenty-first day of October, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one, upon a joint and several bond, given by this defendant and James B. Clarke, as his surety, conditioned for the payment of four thousand dollars.
Read the full summary
The complainants were creditors of the defendant, Peter Clarke, by judgment recovered on the twenty-first day of October, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one, upon a joint and several bond, given by this defendant and James B. Clarke, as his surety, conditioned for the payment of four thousand dollars. Of this sum, two thousand dollars remained unpaid; and after a writ of Ji-fa. had been issued and returned unsatisfied, the bill in- this cause was filed principally for the purpose of setting aside a post-nuptial settlement, made in favor of the wife of Peter Clarke, by deed executed by…
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice-Chancellor:&emdash;It cannot be denied that a wife, by means of property which she acquires in her own right, may become a purchaser from her husband ; and a post-nuptial settlement made by a husband of his property upon the *60wife and children, based on actual purchase made in good faith and for a valuable consideration, will be good against prior as well as subsequent creditors: Lady Arundel v. Phipps, 10 Yes. 140: Atherly, 155, 161.
As the consideration for the deed is one dollar and no other is mentioned, it may be inferred that nothing more than a mere nominal consideration entered…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Shaffer v. FettyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1887
- Schaffner v. SchillingMissouri Court of Appeals · 1878
- Cheatham v. HessCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1877
- Hover v. Hover, Circuit Court of the 14th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Bay County1870
- Perkins v. PerkinsCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1874