Carleton v. Haywood
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, by James C. Carleton against Joel M. Haywood and wife, for money had and received. The defendants filed a general demurrer, claiming that this action in common form, does not lie against husband and wife. The court overruled the demurrer, and the defendants excepted. The case was tried upon the general issue, saving to the defendants the benefit of the exception.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, by James C. Carleton against Joel M. Haywood and wife, for money had and received. The defendants filed a general demurrer, claiming that this action in common form, does not lie against husband and wife. The court overruled the demurrer, and the defendants excepted. The case was tried upon the general issue, saving to the defendants the benefit of the exception. The plaintiff had sent $500, to Mrs. Haywood, bis sister, and all the money, bad not been returned to him, although he had demanded it. The court instructed the jury, that if Mrs. Haywood received the $500 under an…
1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.
By the theory of the common law, the wife’s legal existence is suspended during the continuance of the marriage state. Her property and her civil rights are subjected to her husband’s control. Her fortunes pass by marriage into her husband’s hands. She cannot earn ror herself, nor, in general, contract, sue or be sued in her own right. But, on the other hand, and in order to approximate equality in the system of matrimonial merger and unity, the same common law imposes upon the husband the obligation to pay debts of his wife which he, in fact, never contracted, and makes him answerable to a…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Edwards v. DavisNew York Supreme Court · 1819
- Commonwealth v. TryonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Marshall v. OakesSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1864
3Cited by1 opinion
- Whipple v. GilesSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1875