Hennies v. Vogel
William Hennies v. Michael Vogel et ux.
Syllabus
Summary
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 : This action was brought by husband and wife for personal injuries to the wife.
This court held in C. B. and Q. R. R. Co. v. Dunn, 52 Ill. 260 , that a right of action arising by reason of personal injuries received by a married woman was her separate property, and to recover damages for such injuries she must sue alone. This doctrine was repeated in Hayner et al. v. Smith et al. 63 Ill. 430 .
For any loss to the husband by reason of his wife’s disabilities so occasioned, he has his separate remedy.
The record shows the husband had no cause of action.
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Jicdgment reversed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.