85 Va. 28 | Va. | 1888
(after having stated the facts as aforesaid), delivered the opinion of the court.
The first assignment of error is as to the action of the corporation court in its construction of the deed of December 19,1868, that the same was not the subject of partition, the wife being, during her life, entitled to the whole income from the same. We think the decision of the corporation court upon this deed was in accordance with a long line of decisions in this court, which cannot now be questioned here. From the case of Wallace v. Dold, 3 Leigh, marg. p. 258, it has been held—with some respectable dissent at first—that the gift to the wife and her child was a gift to the wife. The reference to the children indicated the motive for the gift (Stinson v. Day, 1 Rob. (Va.) 436; Leake v. Benson, 29 Gratt. 153; Bain v. Buff, 76 Va. 371; Mauzy v. Mauzy, 79 Va. 539; Waller v. Catlett, 83 Va. 200), and we think there is no error in the decree complained of on this point.
The second assignment of error is as to the action of the corporation court in sustaining the “mutilated deed.” As to this alteration of this deed, by which it was defaced, it will be con
Upon all the authorities, and upon reason, we are of opinion that there is no error in the decree, appealed from under this, the second assignment of error. We are therefore of opinion to affirm the said decree.
Decree aeeirmed.