TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Crowther v. Crowther

Thankful Crowther versus John W. Crowther

Crowther v. Crowther, 55 Me. 358 (1868)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1868
Judges
Appleton, Daneorth, Dickerson, Kent, Tapley, Walton
Citations
55 Me. 358
Cited by 4
Headnotes
R. S., c. 61, § 3, does not enable a married woman to maintain an action against her husband on a note giyen by Mm to her.
Summary
On Facts agreed. Assumpsit upon two promissory notes, signed by the defendant and payable to the' plaiutiff; one dated Dec. 22, 1859, for $375, and the other May 12, 1860, for $700, payable on demand with interest. Writ dated May 10, .1866. Plea, general issue, with specifications of defence. It was admitted that the notes were given for a valuable consideration, delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff, on May 12, 1860 ; and that the plaintiff then was and still is the lawful wife of the defendant. The Court to enter such judgment as the law required. R. S., c. 61, § 3, is broad enough to support the action, and it should be so construed as to make it effectual for the protection of the private property of married women, even in the hands of their husbands. The defence cannot be made under the general issue. Objection should be presented by plea in abatement.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Appleton

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Appleton, C. J.

The case comes before us on an agreed statement of facts, and the question presented is whether a wife can maintain a suit against her husband on a note given her by him.

At common law such a suit could not be maintained. By R. S., 1857, c. 61, § 3, the wife is authorized to "prosecute and defend suits at law or in equity for the preservation and protection of her property, as if unmarried, or may do it jointly with her husband.” This, section manifestly refers to suits by the wife against third persons and empowers her to maintain an action in her own name or in the joint names of herself and husband, at her election. It does not contemplate a suit by the wife against the husband, nor that he should be arrested and imprisoned at her instance. Such has been the uniform construction of this and similar statutes in this State and in Massachusetts. Smith v. Gorman, 41 Maine, 408; Jackson v. Parks, 10 Cush., 550 ; Ingham y. White, 4 Allen, 412 . If the present statutes do not adequately protect the rights of the wife, it is for the Legislature to make such further provision for their protection as it may deem expedient. Plaintiff nonsuit.

Kent, Walton, Dickerson, Daneorth and Tapley, JJ., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 4 cases

View all citing references →
1886–1887: 11908–1909: 11938–1939: 11972–1973: 118862026peak 1886 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Moulton v. Moulton309 A.2d 224 (Me. 1973)
  2. Courtney v. Courtney1938 OK 538, 87 P.2d 660
  3. Peters v. Peters103 P. 219 (Cal. 1909)
  4. Roseberry v. Roseberry27 W. Va. 759 (1886)

Most recent

  1. Moulton v. Moulton309 A.2d 224 (Me. 1973)
  2. Courtney v. Courtney1938 OK 538, 87 P.2d 660
  3. Peters v. Peters103 P. 219 (Cal. 1909)
  4. Roseberry v. Roseberry27 W. Va. 759 (1886)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list