Crossland v. Shober, 60 N.C. 10, 1 Win. 10 (1864)

June 1864 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

60 N.C. 10, 1 Win. 10

BENJAMIN F. CROSSLAND and his wife LOUISA against FRANCIS E. SHOBER and LIZZIE K. CROSSLAND, an infant of tender years.

Comía of Equity have no jurisdiction to reform a marriage settlement by which property is conveyed to the generate use of the wife, when the bill alleges no fraud, impisitiou, error or mLtake, in respect of the contents of the deed or its execution, and there is no allegation that any provision of the deed has been found to be hurtful to the fund, prejudicial to the interests of the parties, or of marked inconvenience in execution.

The bill sets out that the plaintiffs married iu J aly 1859,, having a short time before executed a deed jointly with the defendant, Francis E. .Shober, by winch every thing then owned by Mrs. Crossland, and every thing which she might thereafter acquire, or which might come to her by act of law, was conveyed to- the defendant Shober in trust for the sole and separate use of Mrs. Grassland, .with power to her to dispose of the property by will, during the cover] lure. The deed provided that in caso Mr. Crossland died in his wife's lifetime, the trustee should reeonvey all the property to her. and if Mrs. Crossland died first, the property not disposed of by her will, should go to the-issue, of the marriage, and if there was no issue, to such persons as would take her property in case she had died unmarried and intestate. The bill states that there is issue of the mamaste, tho defendant Lizzie • Crossland : it. then says that the plaintiffs are desirous that the settlement should be reformed by vesting all of the property in the husband or such part of it as the court shall think proper, and concludes with a general prayer for relief — a guardian- has been appointed to the infant, who answers, submitting her rights to the court. The trustee answered, admitting the facts set forth in the plaintiff’s-bill, and submitting to perform what decree the court might make.

Winston, Senr , for the plaintiff's.

Nc counsel for the defendants.

■Mamut, J.

Vo are at a. loss to conceive of any principle of jurisdiction ic courts .of equity, upon which the bill of complaint can rest.

No fraud, imposition, error, or mistake, is alleged in respect to the deed, or in’respect to its execution. No provision has.been pointed out which in its practical working, has been found hurtful to the fund, prejudicial to the interests of the parties, or of mai ked inconvenience in execution,. Those who entered into it therefore must abide its’operation.

To reform a marriage settlement at the instance ot the wife upon whose stipulation and for whose benefit it was intended, .would expose such instruments to frequent change and much uncertainty ; and lead to mischief which we are anxious to avoid,. Married women can only be allowed to deal with a separate estate in conformity with .the faculties conferred on them by the deed, and if not restricted in terms by the instrument, can charge specifically income or profits, with the concurrence of the trustee. Beyond this, it seems to us, it would be mischievous to enlarge her faculties.

A power during the coverture to modify at will the provisions of the deed would remove at once the protection secured by these rules, and render of little or no avail such deeds of settlement. Parties cannot be released irom tbe incidental chafing oí such restraints as they may choose for prudential reasons, deliberately to impose on themselves in respect to the control of property, any more than they can be relieved bom the occasions 1 unpleasant force and effect of the matrimonial tics thomsolvo .

Both may ho relieved by gentle and prudent conduct appropriately temperad, not by the courts.

The bill must be dismissed.