Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 19.pdf/196

 SQUIRE ATTOM'S DECISIONS she received the $9.00 in small amounts, because her husband would not give her money for shopping and club dues. Plain tiff testified without objection that the money probably went for female suffrage enterprises and upon a mistaken notion as to bargains; that he had unearthed a great fake in the matter of bargains; that there was always some reason that the bargain hunter had not time to bother with why the bargain price was really a mighty good price. He said the stock of goods in the attic of his house would never be of any use to him, for he was not cut out for a mer chant; and he was afraid to carry insurance on his premises because he might get negli gent sometime when he had occasion to go aloft. As to refusing to return the rubber claimed by defendant, witness said it was loaned to him for so long as he desired to use it; that he had looked for it in vain, and could not now find it, and that it wasn't worth over $10.00 anyhow. He also said that Mrs. Stacy was a quarrelsome meddler. Mrs. Stacy, recalled, stated that the only quarrel she knew of between the parties or witnesses was the present suit; and on crossexamination as to her relations with neigh bors the court refused to expunge her evi dence, the part especially objected to being, that one day as she had to pass a neighbor ing saloon, plaintiff wanted to fight someone there who had put him out. "Poor man! he was evidently too drunk to know what he was about, and was bent on quarreling with someone." MURPH MURPHYSON, Attorney for Plaintiff. L. L. D. Purdy, Attorney for Defendant. Opinion by Attom, J. P. I. Plaintiff vainly cites the case of Ad ministratrix of Crimp v. Icemann, Tp. 94, R. 44 E. 6th P. M. In this case the wife of intestate, on the day before his death, col lected a part of his bill for work performed for an undertaker. The court refused to allow defendant credit for the amount. The reason for this holding was partially that the undertaker had knowledge that she intended taking advantage of a bargain in crepe that afternoon, a bargain that she had some

173

where gotten wind of. It is not shown that she gloated to her dying husband over this example of her economical virtues; but as this same undertaker buried him, the court evidently rightly concluded that there was something dark besides black oak in the wood pile. II. The accumulations in the attic under the plaintiff's roof should have made a cor responding impression upon the conglomer ate in the garret under his hat. He should be thankful that after his failure to provide a little leeway in the matter of occasional small change against his wife's economical exploits, she yet found a place to get a little honest money, so that she would not be watched with an embarrassing closeness while in the stores, or followed home by a policeman. III. The phrase, "equity to a settle ment," spoken of in the books treating of the maxim involved herein is full of mean ing, and describes the position a court of equity will take in certain cases pertaining to the wife's estate. Where a husband, in such court, asks the control and disposition of the wherewith of the moneyed partner of his joys and sorrows, he will, while com ing into the knowledge of a good maxim, be required to secure a settlement for her benefit. While it is said the phrase quoted is full of meaning, it is thought that courts nowadays do not practically have time to hark back to the ancient books such cases are found in. And it happens to mean little in this case, for the wife herein seems to have surrounded to some extent upon her own motion even her husband's personal avails without his having to be stopped by equity with a maxim. IV. Under the maxim, equity will not enforce specific performance of a contract misdescribing property sold thereunder, un less compensation is made equal to the dam age caused by the erroneous description. He who seeks equity must do equity. But there is no misdescription here. The rubber has not been misdescribed. It has not even