Murphy v. Grice, 22 N.C. 199, 2 Dev. & Bat. Eq. 199 (1839)

June 1839 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

22 N.C. 199, 2 Dev. & Bat. Eq. 199

JUNE TERM, 1839.

PATRICK MURPHY, Ad’mr. of ISAAC W. GRICE v. SUSAN R. GRICE et al.

By marriage, the husband acquires all the personal chattels of his wife in possession; and, as at law the possession of, the cesluy que trust is the possession of the trustee, so in equity the possession of the trustee is the possession of his cesluy que trust; consequently, inequity the husband will be entitled to all the personal chattels of which his wife is the beneficial owner, and which are in the possession of her trustee-.

A marriage being contemplated between Abner Bronson and Susan R. Cox, articles of agreement were entered into between the said parties and a common friend, Isaac B. Cox, by which it was covenanted that after the marriage, the said Isaac should hold certain slaves, then the property of Miss Cox, to her sole and separate use forever; and whereby Bronson bound himself at any time after the marriage, when he might be thereunto required, to make a conveyance of the legal estate to the said Isaac, in trust, to fulfil the purposes of the settlement. Bronson died shortly after the marriage took place, without having made or having been required to make, the legal conveyance; and the trustee, Isaac B. Cox, took possession of the said slaves in behalf of Mrs. Bronson, hired out some as her trustee, and delivered over others to her. She then intermarried with Isaac W. Grice, who took imme. “iate possession of the last mentioned slaves, and died before the expiration of the term for which the rest had been hired out_ Up0n the death of Grice, Henry Bronson, the administrator of Abner Bronson, the first husband, brought an action of detinue against the plaintiff, who had administered on the estate of Grice, the second husband, and who held the ne-groes that were in the actual possession of his intestate. In that action, the plaintiff had judgment, because the legal title did not pass by Ihe'marriage articles, but vested, upon the marriage, in Abner Bronson.

*£«* erty and in hisciaim of Reín^an"’ plication tyVtbe'sei-a -vioe of the owner, is the posses-owner byhe curatmf'or bailee-

The plaintiff then brought this bill against Henry Bronson, Isaac Bi Cox and Mrs. Grice, seeking to enjoin the execution upon the judgment at law, and praying for a surrender of the other negroes, for an account of their hires since the death of his intestate, and for a conveyance of the legal title.

W. H. Haywood and /Strange for the plaintiff.

Henry for the defendants.

Gastorr, Judge,

i /he facts of this case are undisputed, and the equity upon them is obvious. (His Honor here recited the facts as above and proceeded.) We are of opinion that the plaintiff is clearly entitled to the relief asked for. Nothing is better established* than that marriage is a gift to the husband of all the personal chattels of the wife in pos_ session. As the beneficial interest in the slaves, at the time Grice’s marriage, was wholly in Mrs. Bronson, they were then, in the contemplation of a Court of Equity, her slaves. This indeed is not contested. But we hold it to be equally indisputable, that they were her slaves in possession. As at possession of a cestiiy que trust is the possession of trustee, the legal owner; so in equity, the possession of trustee is the possession of the cestuy que trust, the ben-egcja[ owner. The principle which prevails in both courts * 1 1 is the same, and is, in truth, but a principle of good sense, that every possession held for the owner of property and in assertion of his claim of dominion, being an application of the prope rty to the service of the owner, is the possession of the owner by his agent, curator or bailee.- Upon the marriage, therefore, these slaves, which were, in equity, absolutely the slaves of the wife, became as absolutely the slaves * * of the husband. The argument for the defendants is predicated upon the assumption that', at the time of this marriage, the slaves were choses in action, not reduced into possession; ; 1 1 but as this assumption is unfounded, the argument necessa-nly falls with it.

Where cesm <pie ¿yiist incurs costs at law, h e<i"ite3!e against his trustee,with atonce -ml% redress, he quRyVeco6-costs expen-isdedatiaw, be reimbursed the costa paid to the trustee in the suit law.

The plaintiff, under'the rule established in Keaton v. Cobb, 1 Dev. Eq. Rep. 439, must pay his own costs incurred in the suit at law, by there setting up a defence which was' in law untenable, but he is to be relieved from paying the defendant, Bronson, his costs recovered in that action, and also entitled to recover from the defendants the costs of this •i.

Per Curiam. Decree for the plaintiff.