Vass v. . Southall

26 N.C. 301

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: June 5, 1844
• Status: Published

Opinion

Daaiel, J.

The articles, comprised under the term, par a- phernalia, include such apparel and ornaments of the wife, as are suitable to her condition in life. 2Blac. Com. 436. What are to be so considered, is a question to be decided by the Court, and will depend upon the station and fortune of the parties. 2 Roper on Hus. & Wife, 141. The Judge told the jury, that, even if they wefe of opinion, that the plaintiff’s intestate had made a gift of the watch to defendant, he being insolvent at the time of his death, the plaintiff was entitled to recover. Without going into the question, whether a Court of Law now takes any notice of paraphernalia, we must however concur with his Honor and say, that the watch in controversy was not paraphernalia, under the circumstances the husband was in at the first time he permití-ed his wife to use the said watch, and afterwards up to the time oí his death. The case states that the husband was always a man of limited means, which we must undersand á man of but little property ; and his estate was found to be insolvent at his death. Such a watch could not be considered suitable to the wife of a man in such circumstances in our state of society.

Per Curiam, judgment affirmed.