Jones v. Glass

Supreme Court of Iowa

Jones v. Glass

48 Iowa 345

CourtSupreme Court of Iowa

DecidedApril 20, 1878

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 48 Iowa 345 (Jones v. Glass) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. Glass, 48 Iowa 345 (iowa 1878).

Pincite

Opinion

Adams, J.

husband and wife: wife The appellant contends that, under the Revision of 1860, the wife did not become personally liable for family expenses where the indebtedness was con-traeted by the husband. The provision upon this subject is to be found in section 2507, and is in these words: “The expenses of the family * * * * * * * * * .are chargeable upon the property of both husband and wife, or ■either of them, and in relation thereto they may be sued jointly, or the husband separately.” This is substantially the same as section 2214 of the Code, except that the latter provides that either may- be sued separately. Under the Code .this court has held that the wife is personally liable. Smedley v. Felt, 41 Iowa, 588; 43 Iowa, 608. If she was not personally liable under the Revision, her personal liability under [346]*346the Code must result from the provision that she may be sued separately. But we understand this provision to relate to a mere matter of practice. We do not think it should determine the character of the judgment as personal or otherwise. If a personal judgment can be rendered against her when sued separately, we think it might when sued jointly with her husband. The question presented to us in this case, therefore, seems to us to be substantially determined by Smedley v. Felt, above cited.

But it is urged that a joint action cannot be maintained, because the husband has been discharged in bankruptcy, and that under the Revision, which was in force when the debt was contracted, none but a joint action can be maintained. If, however, the change made by the Code is designed merely to regulate the practice, and does not affect any substantial right, then the Revision would not control the form of action in that respect. We think that the wife became personally liable, and that, at the time the action was brought, she was subject to be sued separately. If so, an action can be maintained against her, notwithstanding her husband’s discharge.

Aeetrmed.

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

Adams, J.

husband and wife: wife The appellant contends that, under the Revision of 1860, the wife did not become personally liable for family expenses where the indebtedness was con-traeted by the husband. The provision upon this subject is to be found in section 2507, and is in these words: “The expenses of the family * * * * * * * * * .are chargeable upon the property of both husband and wife, or ■either of them, and in relation thereto they may be sued jointly, or the husband separately.” This is substantially the same as section 2214 of the Code, except that the latter provides that either may- be sued separately. Under the Code .this court has held that the wife is personally liable. Smedley v. Felt, 41 Iowa, 588; 43 Iowa, 608. If she was not personally liable under the Revision, her personal liability under [346]*346the Code must result from the provision that she may be sued separately. But we understand this provision to relate to a mere matter of practice. We do not think it should determine the character of the judgment as personal or otherwise. If a personal judgment can be rendered against her when sued separately, we think it might when sued jointly with her husband. The question presented to us in this case, therefore, seems to us to be substantially determined by Smedley v. Felt, above cited.

But it is urged that a joint action cannot be maintained, because the husband has been discharged in bankruptcy, and that under the Revision, which was in force when the debt was contracted, none but a joint action can be maintained. If, however, the change made by the Code is designed merely to regulate the practice, and does not affect any substantial right, then the Revision would not control the form of action in that respect. We think that the wife became personally liable, and that, at the time the action was brought, she was subject to be sued separately. If so, an action can be maintained against her, notwithstanding her husband’s discharge.

Aeetrmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 Iowa 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-glass-iowa-1878.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack