Story Case

Helen Warner, the wife of Henry Warner, received an estate by will from her father. When making the will the father expressly devised that this land, given to the daughter, should be her separate estate, free of the claims of her husband. Two years after acquiring the land, Helen Warner sold it, and with the proceeds purchased another plot of land. The parties lived in Indiana and this sale and purchase, made by the wife, was effected before the state legislature passed a law changing the old common law rule as to the rights of the husband in the wife's land. Therefore, Henry Warner claimed a life interest in the land purchased by the wife, and proceeded to sell this interest. She objected on the ground that this land was purchased with the proceeds derived from her father's estate. Is this a good objection?

Ruling Court Case. Kirkpatrick Vs. Buford, Volume 21 Arkansas Reports, Page 268; Volume 76 American Decisions, Page 363

It appears that Elijah Kirkpatrick, by an antenuptial settlement made in the state of Georgia, transferred certain household furniture to his wife, Ann, as her sole and separate estate, free from his control and exempt from his debts and liabilities. She continued to hold the furniture as her own separate property until she and her husband were about to move to Arkansas, when she sold it. After arriving in Arkansas she purchased land with the proceeds of the furniture sale and took title to the land in her own name. This land was levied upon by Buford to satisfy a judgment which had been recovered against the husband Elijah. A bill was thereupon brought, on behalf of Ann Kirkpatrick, to restrain the sale of her property.

Decision: Proceeds arising from the sale of the wife's sole and separate property are to be regarded as her separate estate. So are lands purchased with such proceeds and they are subject to the same rules as was the original estate before it was sold and converted into a different specie of property. It was decreed that the sale of her property should be restrained.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

At common law the husband, upon marriage, became the owner of all chattels personal, and was given the right to collect all choses-in-action belonging to his wife at the time of the marriage. He was also entitled to all the rents, profits and income from her real estate during their joint lives.

Courts of equity felt the injustice of such rules and consequently created a wife's separate estate in equity, which was free from the debts of her husband, and over which he had no control. This was done by the courts so ruling and without the aid of statutes. The separate estate might consist of personalty or realty, given to or purchased by the wife, prior to or during the marriage.

In order to establish the wife's separate title to such, a clearly expressed intention had to be shown that the property so given or settled upon her was to be her sole and separate estate, and that it was to be forever free from the claims of the husband.

In the Story Case, although the statute protecting the wife's separate estate had not been passed, nevertheless the Court would protect her in her possession, because it was purchased with the proceeds of land given to her by her father, with the express restriction Chat it should be free of her husband's claims.

In modern times statutes have been passed which create statutory separate estates for married women. The manner of creation of such statutory separate estates depends upon the statutes in the various states. When a statute decrees that a woman's property shall remain her property, this statute is enforcible in all the courts.