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.

t/OUrts of Equity have uo jaridiiction to reform a xnarriage settlement by which property is conveyed to the seperate use of the wife, when the bill alleges no fraud, imp i&itiou, error or mi-take, ta. respect of the contents of the deed or its execution, ami 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 ni execution. . ,

The bill sets out that the plaintiffs married in July 1859, baying a short time before executed a deed jointly with, the defendant, Fxancis fi. Shober, by which every thing then owned by Mrs. (Jrossland, and every thing which she might thereafter acquire, or which might come to .her by act of law, was convoye^! to the defendant Shober'in trust for the solo and separate use of Mrs. Crossland, with power to her to dispose of the property by will, during the cover* faro. The deed provide 1 that in case Mr. Cross!and died in bis wife’s lifetime,-the trustee should rccouvey all the properly to her, and if Mrs. Ores dan d 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 nnvrri&eo, the defendant Lizzie Crossiand: 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 goheral prayer for relief — a guardian lias been‘appointed to the in fant, who answers, submitting her rights t<>- the court. ' The trusted answered, admitting the facts set forth in the plaintift’s hill,,and submitting to perform what decree the court might make.

Winston, Senr , for the plain tills.

No counsel for the defendants.

'Manly, J.

We are at a loss to conceive of any principle of jurisdiction in courts of- eijuiiy, upon which the bill oi 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 marked 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 audfor whose benefit it was intended, would expose such instruments to frequent change and much uncertainty ; and load to mischief -which -we are anxious to avoid. Married women can only be allowed to deal with a separate estate in conformity with dio 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 'o us, it would be mischievous to enlarge her faculties.

A power during the coverture to modify at will tiie provisions of the deed would remove at once the pi. Section secured by there rules, and render cf little or no avail such heeds of settlement-. Parties cannot be released from the incidental chafing of such restraints as they may choose for pru-' dential reasons, deliberately to impose on themselves in respect to'the centred of properly, any more than they-can be relieved from the occasional unpleasant force and effect of the matrimonial tics thcms-olve .

Both may be relieved by gentle and prudent conduct appropriately "tempered. not by the courts.

The bill must be dismissed.