Chandler Swift, of Paris, Me., was a private in Company F, Twenty-third Regiment Maine Volunteer Infantry. He served from February 10, 1863, to July 15, 1863, and was honorably discharged. He filed and established a claim under the act of June 27, 1890, and is now pensioned under said act at $12 per month for right inguinal hernia, disease of heart, nasopharyngeal catarrh. He also applied under the general law November 28, 1885, alleging hernia of right side, but his application was rejected January 13, 1903, and properly so, on the ground that his evidence failed to show that his disability was incurred in the service. When this claimant was last examined, December 4, 1901, he was rated $10 for hernia of right side, $4 for catarrh, and $4 for heart disease, and the evidence filed with this committee shows that claimant about a year ago sustained fracture of the left hip and is no longer able to work, and can not go about except with the aid of two crutches. Two physicians testify that he is totally disabled for any kind of labor and neighbors also testify to the same effect. He is 69 years of age and without income except his pension. An increase of soldier's pension to $24 per month is recommended on the ground of his present condition. It is not shown as due to his service, which was comparatively short, and no greater increase is warranted. -Congressional Serial Set (1911).
Savage, J., delivered the opinion of the court: The plaintiff's decedent, a widow [Emma M. Wadlin] possessed of about $10,000 and living at Belfast, married Chandler Swift, of Paris, August 5, 1902, and in the same month came to his home to live with him. In the December following, being then ill and probably apprehensive of a fatal result, Mrs. Swift made a will by which she gave her husband $500, and the income of $2,000 more. Later she went to the hospital for treatment. After remaining there for seventeen days, she returned to her husband's home, and stayed there until April 5, 1903, at which time she went back to Belfast, her former home. She continued to live in Belfast until she died of tuberculosis of the lungs, July 17, 1903. On May 9, 1903, she assigned to the defendant deposits in various savings banks amounting to $5,767.25, and transferred to her her household furniture, and certain other goods and chattels of small value. At the same time she gave away to others practically all of her remaining property, but she gave nothing to her husband. The will above referred to she then destroyed. Subsequently she caused the savings-bank books representing the deposits assigned to the defendant to be surrendered to the banks. The deposit accounts were transferred to the defendant, and new books were issued in her name. These books were sent by the banks to Mrs. Swift, who delivered them to the defendant. So far as forms are concerned, these transactions constituted a valid transfer of the deposits to the defendant. The agreed case states that the transfers were "made in contemplation of death," and that Mrs. Swift died of the incurable disease from which she was suffering at the time the transfer was made. The parties are not agreed as to whether the transfer was a gift or a contract...
The plaintiff, as administrator, brings this action of trover for the savings-bank deposits, which were given to the defendant... The defendant presents various objections to the maintenance of the suit, and first, that the plaintiff is not the proper party. It is claimed that, if the gift was fraudulent as to the husband, and hence void, as the plaintiff urges, the husband only was injured, and that he only can obtain relief in some appropriate form of action. But we incline to think otherwise... Upon the merits, the defendant contends that the transactions which we have stated between Mrs. Swift and the defendant are not to be viewed merely as a voluntary gift, but that they are to be supported rather as a contract based upon valuable consideration. The case states that the defendant "verbally agreed to take care of Mrs. Swift as long as she should live, pay her funeral expenses, do some cemetery work on her lot, and provide for the perpetual care of the same;" but it does not state that the transfers to the defendant were made in consideration of her agreement to do these things, nor is there sufficient evidence to warrant a finding to that effect. We think the transfers must be treated as a gift. We are accordingly led to inquire whether a married woman can give away her personal estate, when the obvious effect, and therefore the presumed intent, in part at least, is to deprive her husband of that share in her property which he would otherwise be entitled to after her death, as distributee. It cannot be doubted that, under the "married women's statute of this state, a married woman may own, manage, sell, dispose of, and give away her personal property as freely and absolutely as a married man may do. She may do so without her husband's assent to the same extent that a married man may do so without his wife's assent. Rev. Stat. chap. 63, § 1; Allen v. Hooper, 50 Me. 375; Hanson v. Millett, 55 Me. 189; Haggett v. Hurley, 91 Me. 552, 41 L.R.A. 362, 40 Atl. 56l... - Lawyers' Reports Annotated, Book 3 (1906).
Savage, J., delivered the opinion of the court: The plaintiff's decedent, a widow [Emma M. Wadlin] possessed of about $10,000 and living at Belfast, married Chandler Swift, of Paris, August 5, 1902, and in the same month came to his home to live with him. In the December following, being then ill and probably apprehensive of a fatal result, Mrs. Swift made a will by which she gave her husband $500, and the income of $2,000 more. Later she went to the hospital for treatment. After remaining there for seventeen days, she returned to her husband's home, and stayed there until April 5, 1903, at which time she went back to Belfast, her former home. She continued to live in Belfast until she died of tuberculosis of the lungs, July 17, 1903. On May 9, 1903, she assigned to the defendant deposits in various savings banks amounting to $5,767.25, and transferred to her her household furniture, and certain other goods and chattels of small value. At the same time she gave away to others practically all of her remaining property, but she gave nothing to her husband. The will above referred to she then destroyed. Subsequently she caused the savings-bank books representing the deposits assigned to the defendant to be surrendered to the banks. The deposit accounts were transferred to the defendant, and new books were issued in her name. These books were sent by the banks to Mrs. Swift, who delivered them to the defendant. So far as forms are concerned, these transactions constituted a valid transfer of the deposits to the defendant. The agreed case states that the transfers were "made in contemplation of death," and that Mrs. Swift died of the incurable disease from which she was suffering at the time the transfer was made. The parties are not agreed as to whether the transfer was a gift or a contract...
The plaintiff, as administrator, brings this action of trover for the savings-bank deposits, which were given to the defendant... The defendant presents various objections to the maintenance of the suit, and first, that the plaintiff is not the proper party. It is claimed that, if the gift was fraudulent as to the husband, and hence void, as the plaintiff urges, the husband only was injured, and that he only can obtain relief in some appropriate form of action. But we incline to think otherwise... Upon the merits, the defendant contends that the transactions which we have stated between Mrs. Swift and the defendant are not to be viewed merely as a voluntary gift, but that they are to be supported rather as a contract based upon valuable consideration. The case states that the defendant "verbally agreed to take care of Mrs. Swift as long as she should live, pay her funeral expenses, do some cemetery work on her lot, and provide for the perpetual care of the same;" but it does not state that the transfers to the defendant were made in consideration of her agreement to do these things, nor is there sufficient evidence to warrant a finding to that effect. We think the transfers must be treated as a gift. We are accordingly led to inquire whether a married woman can give away her personal estate, when the obvious effect, and therefore the presumed intent, in part at least, is to deprive her husband of that share in her property which he would otherwise be entitled to after her death, as distributee. It cannot be doubted that, under the "married women's statute of this state, a married woman may own, manage, sell, dispose of, and give away her personal property as freely and absolutely as a married man may do. She may do so without her husband's assent to the same extent that a married man may do so without his wife's assent. Rev. Stat. chap. 63, § 1; Allen v. Hooper, 50 Me. 375; Hanson v. Millett, 55 Me. 189; Haggett v. Hurley, 91 Me. 552, 41 L.R.A. 362, 40 Atl. 56l... - Lawyers' Reports Annotated, Book 3 (1906).
Chandler Swift, of Paris, Me., was a private in Company F, Twenty-third Regiment Maine Volunteer Infantry. He served from February 10, 1863, to July 15, 1863, and was honorably discharged. He filed and established a claim under the act of June 27, 1890, and is now pensioned under said act at $12 per month for right inguinal hernia, disease of heart, nasopharyngeal catarrh. He also applied under the general law November 28, 1885, alleging hernia of right side, but his application was rejected January 13, 1903, and properly so, on the ground that his evidence failed to show that his disability was incurred in the service. When this claimant was last examined, December 4, 1901, he was rated $10 for hernia of right side, $4 for catarrh, and $4 for heart disease, and the evidence filed with this committee shows that claimant about a year ago sustained fracture of the left hip and is no longer able to work, and can not go about except with the aid of two crutches. Two physicians testify that he is totally disabled for any kind of labor and neighbors also testify to the same effect. He is 69 years of age and without income except his pension. An increase of soldier's pension to $24 per month is recommended on the ground of his present condition. It is not shown as due to his service, which was comparatively short, and no greater increase is warranted. -Congressional Serial Set (1911).
Savage, J., delivered the opinion of the court: The plaintiff's decedent, a widow [Emma M. Wadlin] possessed of about $10,000 and living at Belfast, married Chandler Swift, of Paris, August 5, 1902, and in the same month came to his home to live with him. In the December following, being then ill and probably apprehensive of a fatal result, Mrs. Swift made a will by which she gave her husband $500, and the income of $2,000 more. Later she went to the hospital for treatment. After remaining there for seventeen days, she returned to her husband's home, and stayed there until April 5, 1903, at which time she went back to Belfast, her former home. She continued to live in Belfast until she died of tuberculosis of the lungs, July 17, 1903. On May 9, 1903, she assigned to the defendant deposits in various savings banks amounting to $5,767.25, and transferred to her her household furniture, and certain other goods and chattels of small value. At the same time she gave away to others practically all of her remaining property, but she gave nothing to her husband. The will above referred to she then destroyed. Subsequently she caused the savings-bank books representing the deposits assigned to the defendant to be surrendered to the banks. The deposit accounts were transferred to the defendant, and new books were issued in her name. These books were sent by the banks to Mrs. Swift, who delivered them to the defendant. So far as forms are concerned, these transactions constituted a valid transfer of the deposits to the defendant. The agreed case states that the transfers were "made in contemplation of death," and that Mrs. Swift died of the incurable disease from which she was suffering at the time the transfer was made. The parties are not agreed as to whether the transfer was a gift or a contract...
The plaintiff, as administrator, brings this action of trover for the savings-bank deposits, which were given to the defendant... The defendant presents various objections to the maintenance of the suit, and first, that the plaintiff is not the proper party. It is claimed that, if the gift was fraudulent as to the husband, and hence void, as the plaintiff urges, the husband only was injured, and that he only can obtain relief in some appropriate form of action. But we incline to think otherwise... Upon the merits, the defendant contends that the transactions which we have stated between Mrs. Swift and the defendant are not to be viewed merely as a voluntary gift, but that they are to be supported rather as a contract based upon valuable consideration. The case states that the defendant "verbally agreed to take care of Mrs. Swift as long as she should live, pay her funeral expenses, do some cemetery work on her lot, and provide for the perpetual care of the same;" but it does not state that the transfers to the defendant were made in consideration of her agreement to do these things, nor is there sufficient evidence to warrant a finding to that effect. We think the transfers must be treated as a gift. We are accordingly led to inquire whether a married woman can give away her personal estate, when the obvious effect, and therefore the presumed intent, in part at least, is to deprive her husband of that share in her property which he would otherwise be entitled to after her death, as distributee. It cannot be doubted that, under the "married women's statute of this state, a married woman may own, manage, sell, dispose of, and give away her personal property as freely and absolutely as a married man may do. She may do so without her husband's assent to the same extent that a married man may do so without his wife's assent. Rev. Stat. chap. 63, § 1; Allen v. Hooper, 50 Me. 375; Hanson v. Millett, 55 Me. 189; Haggett v. Hurley, 91 Me. 552, 41 L.R.A. 362, 40 Atl. 56l... - Lawyers' Reports Annotated, Book 3 (1906).
Savage, J., delivered the opinion of the court: The plaintiff's decedent, a widow [Emma M. Wadlin] possessed of about $10,000 and living at Belfast, married Chandler Swift, of Paris, August 5, 1902, and in the same month came to his home to live with him. In the December following, being then ill and probably apprehensive of a fatal result, Mrs. Swift made a will by which she gave her husband $500, and the income of $2,000 more. Later she went to the hospital for treatment. After remaining there for seventeen days, she returned to her husband's home, and stayed there until April 5, 1903, at which time she went back to Belfast, her former home. She continued to live in Belfast until she died of tuberculosis of the lungs, July 17, 1903. On May 9, 1903, she assigned to the defendant deposits in various savings banks amounting to $5,767.25, and transferred to her her household furniture, and certain other goods and chattels of small value. At the same time she gave away to others practically all of her remaining property, but she gave nothing to her husband. The will above referred to she then destroyed. Subsequently she caused the savings-bank books representing the deposits assigned to the defendant to be surrendered to the banks. The deposit accounts were transferred to the defendant, and new books were issued in her name. These books were sent by the banks to Mrs. Swift, who delivered them to the defendant. So far as forms are concerned, these transactions constituted a valid transfer of the deposits to the defendant. The agreed case states that the transfers were "made in contemplation of death," and that Mrs. Swift died of the incurable disease from which she was suffering at the time the transfer was made. The parties are not agreed as to whether the transfer was a gift or a contract...
The plaintiff, as administrator, brings this action of trover for the savings-bank deposits, which were given to the defendant... The defendant presents various objections to the maintenance of the suit, and first, that the plaintiff is not the proper party. It is claimed that, if the gift was fraudulent as to the husband, and hence void, as the plaintiff urges, the husband only was injured, and that he only can obtain relief in some appropriate form of action. But we incline to think otherwise... Upon the merits, the defendant contends that the transactions which we have stated between Mrs. Swift and the defendant are not to be viewed merely as a voluntary gift, but that they are to be supported rather as a contract based upon valuable consideration. The case states that the defendant "verbally agreed to take care of Mrs. Swift as long as she should live, pay her funeral expenses, do some cemetery work on her lot, and provide for the perpetual care of the same;" but it does not state that the transfers to the defendant were made in consideration of her agreement to do these things, nor is there sufficient evidence to warrant a finding to that effect. We think the transfers must be treated as a gift. We are accordingly led to inquire whether a married woman can give away her personal estate, when the obvious effect, and therefore the presumed intent, in part at least, is to deprive her husband of that share in her property which he would otherwise be entitled to after her death, as distributee. It cannot be doubted that, under the "married women's statute of this state, a married woman may own, manage, sell, dispose of, and give away her personal property as freely and absolutely as a married man may do. She may do so without her husband's assent to the same extent that a married man may do so without his wife's assent. Rev. Stat. chap. 63, § 1; Allen v. Hooper, 50 Me. 375; Hanson v. Millett, 55 Me. 189; Haggett v. Hurley, 91 Me. 552, 41 L.R.A. 362, 40 Atl. 56l... - Lawyers' Reports Annotated, Book 3 (1906).
Gravesite Details
Inscription lists his DOD as March 21, but his birth record says March 20.
Family Members
Sponsored by Ancestry
Advertisement
Records on Ancestry
Advertisement
