Pin-money: and similar allowances from husband to wife : suspicion (b); and nothing less will do than a clear irrevocable gift, either to some person as trustee, or by some clear and distinct act of his, by which he divested himself of the property, and engaged to hold it as trustee for the separate use of his wife (c). In a case, however, where a husband gave directions to his bankers to invest a sum of money in the funds, in the joint names of himself and wife, and their brokers accordingly made the purchase; Lord Langdale, M. R., held that the wife was entitled to the stock by survivorship, although the husband died after the contract, but before the transfer had been completed (d). Those gifts of money by the husband to the wife for clothes, or to purchase ornaments, or for her separate expenditure, which are usually called pin-money (e), will be good in equity as against the husband, and all volunteer claimants through him (ƒ). Similar allowances have been supported in equity; as where the husband voluntarily allowed the wife to dispose and make profit of all such butter, eggs, poultry, pigs, fruit, and other trivial matters arising from a farm (over and besides what was used by the family) for her own separate use, calling it her pin-money; out of which the wife saved 1007.; which the husband borrowed, and died; Lord Chancellor Talbot decreed, that there being no deficiency of assets to pay debts, the widow should come in as a creditor for the 1001.; and the Court mentioned the case of Calmady v. Calmady, where there was a like agreement made betwixt husband and wife, that upon every renewal of a lease by a husband, two guineas should be paid by the tenant to the wife, and this was allowed to be her separate money (g). (b) Walter v. Hodge, 2 Swanst. 92. S. C. 1 Wils. Ch. Rep. 445. (c) M'Lean v. Longlands, 5 Ves. (d) Vance v. Vance, 1 Beav. 605.. money, see the elaborate observa tions of Lord Brougham, C., in Howard v. Digby, 8 Bligh, 224. S. C. 2 Cl. & Fin. 634. (ƒ) 2 Roper, Husband and Wife, 132, 2nd edit. (g) Slanning v. Style, 3 P. Wms. 339. So also in Mangey v. Hungerford (h), the wife had saved a considerable sum of money out of housekeeping, and in a suit instituted against her for a discovery of what she had saved, she insisted by answer that she was not bound to make such a discovery; and upon exceptions to the answer, it was held sufficient by Lord King. savings out of pin-money and other allow ances, when band's debts: It often happens that pin-money is settled on the wife by agreement previous to marriage; in which case it falls under a different consideration; and upon the principles already liable to husexplained, the savings by the wife out of it will be protected as her separate property, not only against the husband and volunteer claimants through him, but also from his creditors. But if the wife, by good management, effect savings out of her pin-money or other allowance made by the husband, not in pursuance of an antenuptial contract, such savings, as well as jewels so purchased by the wife out of them, will not, it should seem, be exempt from the husband's debts, but will be assets for the purpose of satisfying them, in the hands of his executors (i), although protected from voluntary claims. If pin-money be in arrear, and the husband dies, the wife Arrears of pinmoney, what may claim the arrears against her husband's representatives: recoverable. though such claim cannot, generally speaking, be carried further back than one year's income (k): Which restriction appears to have been founded partly on a supposed satisfaction by acquiescence, on the notion of the consent of the wife, to make it a common fund for the expense of the family (); and partly on the consideration, that the money (h) 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 156, in margine. (i) Wilson v. Pack, Prec. Chan. 297: and see Lady Tyrrell's case, 1 Freem. 304, where Lord Keeper Finch held, that jewels bought by the widow, out of the savings of a yearly sum allowed by her husband for her own expenses, were liable to his creditors. This decision has been considered by Mr. Hovenden, in his edition of 2 Free- (k) Peacock v. Monk, 2 Ves. Sen. 36. (1) Brodie v. Barry, 2 V. & B. is meant for the dress and ornament of the wife, in a mode suitable to the degree of the husband, so as to maintain his dignity, and not for the accumulation of the fund; so that if the wife does not choose to expend the money for the purpose to which it was appropriated, viz., to support his and her rank in society, she cannot justly claim the arrears of it (m). Again, if pin-money be in arrear, and the wife dies, her representatives cannot sustain any claim for it whatever; the ground of which rule is, that the pin-money was not meant for the sustentation of the wife, but for her dress and ornament in a station suitable to the degree of her husband: The authorities connected with this subject, and the nature of pin-money in general, were fully discussed and commented on in the arguments of counsel and the judgment of Lord Brougham, in a late case relating to the arrears of the pin-money of the Duchess of Norfolk (n). Her Grace was entitled, under the trusts of the settlement made in contemplation of her marriage with the Duke in 1771, to two annuities of 700l. and 300l., charged by way of pin-money, upon estates to which the Duke was entitled for his life: The Duke received all the rents and profits of the estates, and maintained the Duchess according to her rank, up to the time of his death in 1815: In 1816, the Duchess was found to have been a lunatic, without lucid intervals, from 1782, and she continued so until 1820, when she died intestate: Her personal representative claimed from the personal representative of the Duke, arrears of the pin-money, from 1782 to 1815: And it was held by the Lords, reversing the decree of the Vice Chancellor (0), that the personal representative of the Duke would have been entitled to set off any payments made by the Duke in respect of the personal expenses of the Duchess, against a claim for the arrears of her pin-money by her, if it had been (m) 2 Cl. & Fin. 657. S. C. 8 Bligh, 249. (n) Howard v. Digby, 2 Cl. & Fin. 634. S. C. 8 Bligh, 224. See also Jodrell v. Jodrell, 9 (0) Digby v. Howard, 4 Sim. 588. made on her behalf during her lifetime, and that the personal representative of the Duchess was not entitled to any arrears whatever. Another instance where the wife may acquire a property Paraphernalia : in her husband's personal chattels, by gift from him, so as to exclude his executors or administrators, is to be found in her paraphernalia. The term is borrowed from the civil law, and is derived from the Greek, парa peрvn, i. e. something to which she is entitled over and above dower. Our law what are so uses it to signify the apparel and ornaments of the wife, considered : suitable to her rank and degree (p). What are to be so considered, are questions to be decided by the Court, and will depend upon the rank and fortunes of the parties (q). Pearls and jewels, whether usually worn by the wife, or only on birth-days, and other public occasions, are to be considered paraphernalia (r). In the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the executors of Viscount Bindon brought detinue against the widow of the deceased viscount, and declared upon the detainer of certain jewels: The defendant justified the detainer of them as her paraphernalia: It was said by Manwood, Chief Baron, that paraphernalia ought to be allowed to a widow, having regard to her degree, and in this case the husband of the defendant being a viscount, 500 marks was but a good allowance for such a matter (s). In the reign of Charles I. a chain of diamonds and pearls worth 370l., being usually worn by a lady, who was a daughter of an earl of Ireland, and a baron of England, and (p) 2 Black. Comm. 436. A bed is also in some authors enumemerated among the paraphernalia: Com. Dig. Baron & Feme, (F. 3). Noy enumerates "all her apparel, her bed, her copher, her chains, borders, and jewels." Max. c. 49. And Swinburne mentions the ancient and general custom, as to widows, of the province of York, as extending "not only to their ap parel, and a convenient bed, but a (q) 2 Rop. Husband and Wife, (r) Graham v. Londonderry, 3 Atk. 394, by Lord Hardwicke. (s) Viscountess Bindon's case, 2 Leon. 166, pl. 201. S. C. Moor. 213. the wife of a knight and a serjeant-at-law of the king, were considered bona paraphernalia (t). In the year 1674, Lord Keeper Finch said, he never knew any paraphernalia allowed, but where the party was noble either by birth or marriage (u): but in the year 1721, Lord Macclesfield, in the case of Tipping v. Tipping (x), decreed, that the widow of a commoner should have jewels, &c., to the value of 2001. and upwards, as her bona paraphernalia. Lord Talbot afterwards allowed the widow of a private gentleman her gold watch, and several gold rings, given at the burials of relations (y). And in a case where a Mrs. Northey, in the lifetime of her husband, was possessed of jewels to the value of 3000l. and upwards, which had been bought partly with her own money, and partly her husband's, and had been worn by her whenever she was dressed; Lord Hardwicke held, that she was entitled to them as paraphernalia, and said, that the value made no alteration in the Court of Chancery (2). The following case, as decided Mich. 5 Geo. I., is reported in Viner's Abridgement (a): Mr. Calmady having a crocheat of diamonds, which was his first wife's, in 1695 makes his Will, and, amongst other things, devises this crocheat to his eldest son, and that it should go in succession to the heir of his family as an heir-loom: Afterwards, in 1699, he marries a second wife, (the defendant,) and turns this crocheat into a necklace, and adds several new diamonds to it to the value of 2001., which was more than the value of the crocheat: The plaintiff, as heir to Mr. Calmady, (though not the eldest son to whom it was specifically devised,) demands this crocheat of the defendant, the widow of Mr. Calmady: Counsel for the defendant insisted, that the defendant was entitled to it (t) Lord Hastings v. Sir A. Douglas, Cro. Car. 343. S. C. 1 Roll. Abr. 911, pl. 9. W. Jones, 334. (u) Lady Tyrrell's case, 1 Freem. 304. (x) 1 P. Wms. 729. (y) 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 156, in margine. 79. (z) Northey v. Northey, 2 Atk. (a) Calmady v. Calmady, 11 Vin. Abr. 181, pl. 21. |