
    Scott, administrator, v. Causey.
    A conveyance of land made in 1849 by a father to his married daughter and her husband, in consideration of love and affection for both of them and a nominal money consideration of five dollars, declaring no separate use in the daughter, but with habendum and tenendumto them, their heirs and assigns, to their own proper use, benefit and behoof, forever in fee simple, created no separate estate in the daughter, and under the rule then prevailing in this State, the rights of her husband, the son-in-law of the donor, attached upon her interest in the property conveyed, he having subsequently asserted title to and exercised acts of ownership over the whole, and having survived his wife, who died in April, 1871, leaving him her sole heir at law. The facts of the case distinguish it from Parrott v. Edmondson, 64 Ga. 832.
    August 1, 1892.
    Deed. Husband and wife. Before Judge Miller. Houston superior court. October term, 1891.
    A ft. fa. in favor of Causey against Jack, administrator of "W. B. Scott, was levied upon certain property to an undivided lialf-interest in which. Lee Scott, administrator of Diana É. Scott, interposed a claim. Upon the trial was introduced in evidence a deed from John Jones to W. B. and Diana E. Scott, dated December 24, 1849, conveying the property in consi deration of love and affection, to W. B. and Diana E. It was agreed that the land claimed was conveyed as stated in the deed; that W. B. and Diana E. married before the making of the deed and both lived on the land until April, 1871, at which time she died, W. B. remaining in possession after her death until 1879, when he died; that all of their children are of age and married, except one who is now twenty-five years old; that the land was given in for taxes by 'W. B. as his own for 1867-1869 and 1870; and that W. B. took a homestead on the lands and on other land and personal property for the benefit of his wife, Diana E., and six minor children, which was approved by the ordinary January 9, 1869. The claim was interposed in 1891. After argument the judge directed plaintiff’s counsel to take a verdict finding the property subject, which was done. The claimant excepted.
   Judgment affirmed.

A. 8. Giles, for plaintiff in error.

R. D. Smith, W. S. Wallace and Gustin, Guerry & Hall, contra.  