Stewart v. Lyon

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Stewart v. Lyon

3 Ky. Op. 314, 1869 Ky. LEXIS 404

DecidedSeptember 21, 1869

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Ky. Op. 314 (Stewart v. Lyon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stewart v. Lyon, 3 Ky. Op. 314, 1869 Ky. LEXIS 404 (Ky. Ct. App. 1869).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin:

It was expressly decided by this court in the case of Tobin's Guardian vs. Dixon and Wife (2 Met., 422) that a chose in action which has accrued to a married woman during her coverture and which the husband can reduce to possession, can be subjected to [315]*315the payment of bis debts at the instance of bis creditors, unless such a state of case exist as to authorize the court to appropriate the fund sought to be subjected as an equitable provision for the wife.

Drane, for appellants. Rankin, Hamilton, for appellees.

In these cases the land sold to Poor, and for which the debt in controversy was created was this general estate of Mrs. Lyon, and although the note of Poor was made payable' to her, it virtually belonged to her husband, and was liable to be subjected to the plaintiff’s claims, subject to the right of Mrs. Lyon to have an equitable settlement made for her out of it, on the presentation of a proper ease to authorize the chancellor to interpose in her behalf for that purpose.

Whether she might or not have shown herself entitled to have such a provision made for her does not appear in these cases. No such equitable provision was sought by her nor was it shown that her own circumstances, or those of her husband, required it. The fact that the plaintiffs’ executions against Lyon were returned “no property found” at most, was only prima facie evidence of Lyon’s insolvency. He may, neverthelesss, have been a man' of wealth. The returns did not, therefore, lay the foundation for the interposition of the court to provide for the wife, without other evidence, allegation or prayer for that purpose.

The judgment must, therefore, be reversed, but on the return of the cause Mrs. Lyon will be allowed by amended pleading to assert her claim to an equitable provision should she ask to do so.

Wherefore, said judgments are reversed, and the causes remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

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

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin:

It was expressly decided by this court in the case of Tobin's Guardian vs. Dixon and Wife (2 Met., 422) that a chose in action which has accrued to a married woman during her coverture and which the husband can reduce to possession, can be subjected to [315]*315the payment of bis debts at the instance of bis creditors, unless such a state of case exist as to authorize the court to appropriate the fund sought to be subjected as an equitable provision for the wife.

Drane, for appellants. Rankin, Hamilton, for appellees.

In these cases the land sold to Poor, and for which the debt in controversy was created was this general estate of Mrs. Lyon, and although the note of Poor was made payable' to her, it virtually belonged to her husband, and was liable to be subjected to the plaintiff’s claims, subject to the right of Mrs. Lyon to have an equitable settlement made for her out of it, on the presentation of a proper ease to authorize the chancellor to interpose in her behalf for that purpose.

Whether she might or not have shown herself entitled to have such a provision made for her does not appear in these cases. No such equitable provision was sought by her nor was it shown that her own circumstances, or those of her husband, required it. The fact that the plaintiffs’ executions against Lyon were returned “no property found” at most, was only prima facie evidence of Lyon’s insolvency. He may, neverthelesss, have been a man' of wealth. The returns did not, therefore, lay the foundation for the interposition of the court to provide for the wife, without other evidence, allegation or prayer for that purpose.

The judgment must, therefore, be reversed, but on the return of the cause Mrs. Lyon will be allowed by amended pleading to assert her claim to an equitable provision should she ask to do so.

Wherefore, said judgments are reversed, and the causes remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Ky. Op. 314, 1869 Ky. LEXIS 404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-lyon-kyctapp-1869.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack