TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Noble's v. Noble

Noble's v. Noble, 19 Ind. 431 (1862)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 15, 1862
Judges
Perkins
Citations
19 Ind. 431
Headnotes
Since 1853, upon the death of a wife, testate or intestate, leaving a widower, he is entitled to one-third of her estate, both real and personal, subject to his proportion of the debts of the wife contracted before marriage.
Summary
APPEAL from the Franklin Common Pleas.

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

Opinion of the Court — Perkins

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

Perkins, J.

Emily II Noble, the wife of James Noble, departed this life, testate, leaving personal property, hers separately, of considerable value.

James Noble, her widower, applied to the Common Pleas Court of the proper county, for direction to the executrix of Emily H. Noble, deceased, to pay to him the value of one-third of the personal estate above mentioned, subject, etc., left by the said Emily. James Noble took nothing under the will. The direction was given, and, we think, rightly.

By the common law, and the law of Indiana, prior to 1853, the husband acquired all the personal property of the wife, by marriage. Her personal estate, and the use of her real estate, came, upon marriage, into the common stock for the benefit of the family.

But, since 1853, her real estate, the income from it, and her personal estate, existing at the marriage, and that acquired by descent, devise or gift, afterward, remain hers, and she is not obliged to appropriate any of it to the support of the family. But if she dies before her husband, then one-third of her estate, real and personal, goes to him, without regard to any will which the wife may have made. This is the express language of the statute. 1 G. & H., p. 295.

Per Curiam.

The judgment below is affirmed, with costs.

How later courts describe this case

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

1874–1875: 11876–1877: 11894–1895: 11896–1897: 11902–1903: 21916–1917: 118742026peak 1902 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Huffman v. Copeland38 N.E. 861 (Ind. 1894)
  2. Abshire v. State ex rel. Wilson53 Ind. 64 (1876)
  3. O'Harra v. Stone48 Ind. 417 (1874)
  4. Studebaker Bros. Manufacturing Co. v. DeMoss113 N.E. 417 (Ind. Ct. App. 1916)
  5. Kemph v. Belknap43 N.E. 891 (Ind. Ct. App. 1896)
  6. Pearson v. Kepner63 N.E. 38 (Ind. Ct. App. 1902)

Most recent

  1. Studebaker Bros. Manufacturing Co. v. DeMoss113 N.E. 417 (Ind. Ct. App. 1916)
  2. Turner v. Heinberg65 N.E. 294 (Ind. Ct. App. 1902)
  3. Pearson v. Kepner63 N.E. 38 (Ind. Ct. App. 1902)
  4. Kemph v. Belknap43 N.E. 891 (Ind. Ct. App. 1896)
  5. Huffman v. Copeland38 N.E. 861 (Ind. 1894)
  6. Abshire v. State ex rel. Wilson53 Ind. 64 (1876)

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