Machir v. Burroughs
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the superior court of Montgomery county. On January 10, 1844, the legal title to certain parts of lots 211 and 212, in Dayton, and upon which a house was built, became vested in Horace Pease and Perry Pease “in trust for the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said Mary P. Machir who is the equitable owner of said premises.”
Read the full summary
Error to the superior court of Montgomery county. On January 10, 1844, the legal title to certain parts of lots 211 and 212, in Dayton, and upon which a house was built, became vested in Horace Pease and Perry Pease “in trust for the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said Mary P. Machir who is the equitable owner of said premises.” In March, June and July, 1859, under a contract with William Machir and said Mary P. his wife, and in pursuance of a special understanding and agreement with said Mary P. Machir, Burroughs furnished lumber and materials to said Machir and wife, for the…
1Opinion of the Court
BRiNKERHOt'3?, C.J.
It seems to have been assumed by all parties, and to have been held by the court below, that by the terms of the conveyance to Mrs. Maehir, for her “ only proper use, benefit and behoof,” a separate interest was vested in her, to the exclusion of the rights and interests which ordinarily aco’ae to the husband by virtue of the marriage relation. *521"Whether this be so is not quite clear, for the authorities on the point seem to be quite conflicting. 1 H. & W’s Leading Cases in Eq. 412, 413.
The conveyance to the wife was made in 1844, and after hei marriage to her present…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Jaques v. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal ChurchCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1820
- Thomas v. FolwellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1836
- Jenney v. GrayOhio Supreme Court · 1855