Cheatham v. Newman

59 Ala. 547
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided December 15, 1877·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

STONE, J.—

The record of recovery against the husband-was not evidence against the wife’s separate estate that the items composing the account were for articles of comfort and support of the household, &c. Nor did such recovery preclude proof that the account had been paid in whole or in part.—McMillan v. Hurt, 35 Ala. 665, and other authorities cited by appellant.

A change of investment of the wife’s estate, between the purchase and the motion to condemn such substituted estate for a debt for which the separate estate is liable, is no defense to the motion.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cheatham v. Newman, 59 Ala. 547 (Ala. 1877).

59 Ala. 547 (Cheatham v. Newman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Roberts v. Rice
71 Ala. 187 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1881)