Beuley v. Curtis
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 92 — PETITION EQUITY appeal prom mason circuit court. 1. To create a separate estate in the wife, it is sufficient that the nusband is by implication excluded. It is not necessary that there should be express words of exclusion.
Read the full summary
Case 92 — PETITION EQUITY appeal prom mason circuit court. 1. To create a separate estate in the wife, it is sufficient that the nusband is by implication excluded. It is not necessary that there should be express words of exclusion. (Toombs v. Stone, 2 Met., 521; Hathaway v. Yeaman, 8 Bush, 392; Griffith v. Griffith, 5 B. M., 114.) 2. Separate estates and trust estates devised or conveyed to married women can be conveyed only by the husband and trustee uniting in the conveyance. (Gen. Stats., chap. 52, art. 4, sec. 17.) Trusts for the benefit of married women are not treated as mere passive…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Holt
In 1854 Joseph P. Broderick conveyed a lot of ground jointly to the appellant, Mary Ann Beuley, and her sister, Margaret Prior. The will of the latter, executed in 1857, recites ownership of it and devises it to the appellant, a trustee being named for her, who, as the will says, is “ to take and hold said property to and for the use of my sister, and to see that the same is kept and appropriated to her use and benefit.”
In 1874, and when there was no trustee, he having died, the appellant and her husband, who died in 1888, con*507veyed the property to George W. Sulser, and he subset •quently to…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Horbach v. TyrrellNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
- Asher v. SizemoreCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1953
- Virginia Iron, Coal & Coke Co. v. WebbCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1920
- Delfelder v. Teton Land & Investment Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1933