Glenn v. Johnson

Supreme Court

Glenn v. Johnson

85 U.S. 476, 21 L. Ed. 856, 18 Wall. 476, 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1322

DecidedJanuary 12, 1874

StatusPublished

This text of 85 U.S. 476 (Glenn v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Glenn v. Johnson, 85 U.S. 476, 21 L. Ed. 856, 18 Wall. 476, 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1322 (1874).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice FIELD

stated the facts of the case; and delivered the opinion of the court, as follows: ■

It appears that.in July, 1863, one Thomas S..Powell conveyed to the trustee the property in question, for the alleged consideration of four thousand dollars; and'that subsequently, in 1867, buildings and other improvements were placed upon the property to the value of two thousand dollars, The deed recites that the consideration was paid by Mrs. Johnson, and declares that the property is conveyed to the trustee in trust for her. sole’and separate use, and is not to. be liablq for the debts or contracts of her husband.

The bill alleges, upon the belief of the complainants, that the consideration was paid, and the improvements were made, out of the funds of the husband, who, at the time the *477 property was purchased," was greatly embarrassed by debts, and at the' time the improvements were made was wholly insolvent. . It, therefore, charges that the conveyance to the wife and the improvements "upon the property were made in. fraud .of the creditors of the husband, and prays that the conveyance may be declared fraudulent, and the property decreed to be sold and the- proceeds administered by the complainants.under the provisions of the Bankrupt Act; or, if the conveyance be not thus declared fraudulent, that the property be sold and the proceeds, to the extent of the value of thé improvements, be thus administered..

The husband, the wife, and the trustee separately answered the bill, and all averred, the husband and wife positively, and the trustee upon information and belief, that the consideration of the conveyance and the cost of the improvements were paid out of the earnings of the wife from her individual labor and business carried' on with the consent of her husband. The answers are under oath, and their averments in this particular were subsequently sustained by the testimony of the parties as well as by the testimony of other persons.

' The position of the complainants that this fact constitutes no defence to the suit, would be a sound one if the case were to be determined independently of the statute of Georgia. At common law, an agreement after marriage between husband and wife that the latter may carry on businéss on her own .account" and retain her earnings, is invalid as against his creditors, unless founded upon a valuable consideration; a voluntary agreement to that effect is only good as against him. *

But the statute of Georgia comes to the aid of the wife and protécts her separate earnings from his creditors. Section 1702, of the code of that State, whilst providing that all property given to the wife during the coverture, or acquired by her, shall vest in the husband, declares that “ any words *478 iu the gift or bequest indicating a wish' for the personal enjoyment thereof by the wife, such as a gift to the wife by name, shall create a separate estate therein for her, and in no case shall the personal acquisitions of the wife be subject to the debts of the husband.” *

The earnings of the wife are thus placed beyond the reach of his creditors and of course of his assignees in bankruptcy.

Decree affirmed.

*

2 Story’s Equity, 1386-1387.

*

Code of Georgia in force in 1863, p.' 338, $$ 1701-2.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice FIELD

stated the facts of the case; and delivered the opinion of the court, as follows: ■

It appears that.in July, 1863, one Thomas S..Powell conveyed to the trustee the property in question, for the alleged consideration of four thousand dollars; and'that subsequently, in 1867, buildings and other improvements were placed upon the property to the value of two thousand dollars, The deed recites that the consideration was paid by Mrs. Johnson, and declares that the property is conveyed to the trustee in trust for her. sole’and separate use, and is not to. be liablq for the debts or contracts of her husband.

The bill alleges, upon the belief of the complainants, that the consideration was paid, and the improvements were made, out of the funds of the husband, who, at the time the *477 property was purchased," was greatly embarrassed by debts, and at the' time the improvements were made was wholly insolvent. . It, therefore, charges that the conveyance to the wife and the improvements "upon the property were made in. fraud .of the creditors of the husband, and prays that the conveyance may be declared fraudulent, and the property decreed to be sold and the- proceeds administered by the complainants.under the provisions of the Bankrupt Act; or, if the conveyance be not thus declared fraudulent, that the property be sold and the proceeds, to the extent of the value of thé improvements, be thus administered..

The husband, the wife, and the trustee separately answered the bill, and all averred, the husband and wife positively, and the trustee upon information and belief, that the consideration of the conveyance and the cost of the improvements were paid out of the earnings of the wife from her individual labor and business carried' on with the consent of her husband. The answers are under oath, and their averments in this particular were subsequently sustained by the testimony of the parties as well as by the testimony of other persons.

' The position of the complainants that this fact constitutes no defence to the suit, would be a sound one if the case were to be determined independently of the statute of Georgia. At common law, an agreement after marriage between husband and wife that the latter may carry on businéss on her own .account" and retain her earnings, is invalid as against his creditors, unless founded upon a valuable consideration; a voluntary agreement to that effect is only good as against him. *

But the statute of Georgia comes to the aid of the wife and protécts her separate earnings from his creditors. Section 1702, of the code of that State, whilst providing that all property given to the wife during the coverture, or acquired by her, shall vest in the husband, declares that “ any words *478 iu the gift or bequest indicating a wish' for the personal enjoyment thereof by the wife, such as a gift to the wife by name, shall create a separate estate therein for her, and in no case shall the personal acquisitions of the wife be subject to the debts of the husband.” *

The earnings of the wife are thus placed beyond the reach of his creditors and of course of his assignees in bankruptcy.

Decree affirmed.

*

2 Story’s Equity, 1386-1387.

*

Code of Georgia in force in 1863, p.' 338, $$ 1701-2.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 U.S. 476, 21 L. Ed. 856, 18 Wall. 476, 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glenn-v-johnson-scotus-1874.