Wilder & Co. v. Abernethy

Supreme Court of Alabama

Wilder & Co. v. Abernethy

54 Ala. 644

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedDecember 15, 1875

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 54 Ala. 644 (Wilder & Co. v. Abernethy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wilder & Co. v. Abernethy, 54 Ala. 644 (Ala. 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKELL, C. J.

It is -unnecessary to notice separately the several rulings of the circuit court, to which exceptions were reserved. An error affecting them generally, is,in treat-, ing the goods levied on as the statutory separate estate of the appellee. They were purchased on credit, by her husband, for the purposes of trade in her name, and were unpaid for when the levy was made. They passed into the possession of the husband on the purchase, and continued in his [646]*646possession until they were seized by the sheriff. The statutes creating the separate estates of married women have qualified and lessened, to some extent, the incapacity of the wife at common law, but have not entirely destroyed it. “ She can hold property, real and personal, to her sole use, having therein a legal estate courts, of law recognize and protect, and she can, so far as specially enabled, charge it by her contracts, and, jointly with her husband, alienaté- it. No general power of contracting is conferred on her, nor a capacity to hold and acquire property by purchases on credit. “With the exceptions mentioned, she remains under the disabilities imposed by the common law.”- — -2 Bish. Mar. Women, § 231. Whatever property may be acquired by her industry, or skill, or economy, is the property of the husband, as it was at common law. — Shaefer v. Shepherd, present term; Robinson & Co. v. Wallace, 39 Penn. 132; 2 Bish. Mar. Women, § 82. If the goods had been purchased with the separate moneys of the wife, belonging to her separate estate, either equitable or statutory, a different question would arise. — Bolling v. Mock, 35 Ala. 727. The goods having been purchased only on the credit of the wife, and the contract of purchase not being a charge on the separate estate created by the deposit by her father with her husband, (the only separate estate she' is shown to have had), no legal title to the goods passed to her, and her claim cannot- be supported.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

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

BRICKELL, C. J.

It is -unnecessary to notice separately the several rulings of the circuit court, to which exceptions were reserved. An error affecting them generally, is,in treat-, ing the goods levied on as the statutory separate estate of the appellee. They were purchased on credit, by her husband, for the purposes of trade in her name, and were unpaid for when the levy was made. They passed into the possession of the husband on the purchase, and continued in his [646]*646possession until they were seized by the sheriff. The statutes creating the separate estates of married women have qualified and lessened, to some extent, the incapacity of the wife at common law, but have not entirely destroyed it. “ She can hold property, real and personal, to her sole use, having therein a legal estate courts, of law recognize and protect, and she can, so far as specially enabled, charge it by her contracts, and, jointly with her husband, alienaté- it. No general power of contracting is conferred on her, nor a capacity to hold and acquire property by purchases on credit. “With the exceptions mentioned, she remains under the disabilities imposed by the common law.”- — -2 Bish. Mar. Women, § 231. Whatever property may be acquired by her industry, or skill, or economy, is the property of the husband, as it was at common law. — Shaefer v. Shepherd, present term; Robinson & Co. v. Wallace, 39 Penn. 132; 2 Bish. Mar. Women, § 82. If the goods had been purchased with the separate moneys of the wife, belonging to her separate estate, either equitable or statutory, a different question would arise. — Bolling v. Mock, 35 Ala. 727. The goods having been purchased only on the credit of the wife, and the contract of purchase not being a charge on the separate estate created by the deposit by her father with her husband, (the only separate estate she' is shown to have had), no legal title to the goods passed to her, and her claim cannot- be supported.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 Ala. 644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilder-co-v-abernethy-ala-1875.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack