TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Finnigan v. Hibernia Savings & Loan Society

MARY FINNIGAN v. THE HIBERNIA SAVINGS & LOAN SOCIETY

Finnigan v. Hibernia Sav. & Loan Soc'y, 63 Cal. 390 (1883)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 11, 1883
Citations
63 Cal. 3901883 Cal. LEXIS 471
Headnotes
Husband and Wife—Eabnings of Wife.—Under section 168 of the Civil Code, the earnings of the wife are not liable for the debts of the husband.
Summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. The lower court found that the plaintiff and the defendant Daniel Finnigan were husband and wife, and had been such since the year 1850, and that while this relation existed plaintiff made the sum of $1,874.29, by renting rooms and conducting a saloon business, within five years last past, and that during this time the defendant Daniel Finnigan contributed nothing to the support of the plaintiff or his family, and that plaintiff and defendant did not cohabit, because cohabitation was disagreeable to plaintiff, and because she refused to cohabit with the defendant Daniel Finnigan. She was not a sole trader. She deposited the money in bank, and it was seized under an execution against the husband.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

Per Curiam.

The respondents’ proposition in this case is, that money earned by a wife may be taken for the debt of her husband. The question is solved by a provision of the Code not referred to by counsel on either side. It is section 168 of the Civil Code, and reads: “ The earnings of the wife are not liable for the debts of the husband.”

That part of the judgment appealed from, together with the order denying the motion for a new trial, reversed, and cause remanded,

How later courts describe this case

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

1909: 11924: 119092026peak 1909 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Street v. Bertolone226 P. 913 (Cal. 1924)
  2. In re Estate of Foster4 Coffey 33 (Cal. Supp. Ct. (San Francisco) 1909)

Most recent

  1. Street v. Bertolone226 P. 913 (Cal. 1924)
  2. In re Estate of Foster4 Coffey 33 (Cal. Supp. Ct. (San Francisco) 1909)

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