Kuhn v. Stansfield

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of this Court: In August, 1863, Michael J. Kuhn, advanced to his daughter, Mary A. Somerville, by way of settlement, the sum of eight hundred dollars, as appears by the' following receipt, signed by herself and husband: “ Ellicott’s Mills, Aug., ’63. “We hereby acknowledge that We have received of M. J. Kuhn, eight hundred dollars ($800) as an advancement, with a view to a portion or settlement of his daughter, the undersigned Mary. “ Mary A. Somerville, “ J. H. Somerville.” ²¹⁵ In March, 1866, Somerville being largely indebted, executed the bill of sale set forth in the proceedings, and a few days afterwards, the appellee and other creditors, sued out writs of attachment against him as an absconding debtor. The validity of this bill of sale, as against the existing creditors of Somerville, is the question submitted to this Court. It is conceded that a contract may be entered into, by a husband, for the transfer of property to his wife, for a bona fide consideration coming from her. The cases of Stockett, Adm’r, vs. Holliday and others, 9 Md. Rep., 480 , and Jones, Adm’r of Horsey, vs. Jones and Wife, et al., 18 Md. Rep., 467 , were decided upon this established principle of law.

It is equally well settled, that the relation of debtor and creditor may exist, growing out of the appropriation, by the husband, of the wife’s separate property; but if received and appropriated, with her knowledge and acquiescence, this Court has said, in Edelen vs. Edelen, 11 Md. Rep., 420 , that “in such cases, there must be an agreement by the husband to repay the money so appropriated.”' The case now before us must be decided by the application of this general principle of law. It is wholly immaterial whether Somerville received the money from his wife, or Kuhn, her father, the question being whether he received and appropriated it, with the wife’s knowledge and acquiescence, in pursuance of an agreement to repay it. This must be determined from the face of the bill of sale and receipt, no other proof being offered in the cause. That it was received with the knowledge and acquiescence of the wife, admits of no doubt, and as to the agreement to repay it, both papers are entirely silent.

It is neither expressed in the receipt, nor alleged by way of consideration in the bill of sale. The receipt is but an acknowledgment of the money advanced by the father, with a view to a settlement, and was taken for the obvious