Crenshaw v. Hardy
Supreme Court of Alabama
UPON the settlement of the account of the plaintiff in error, as guardian of Susan Crenshaw, who had intermarried with the defendant, the Orphans’ Court of Lowndes rendered a decree for the sum ascertained to be due against the plaintiff, in favor of the husband alone. About two years after the rendition of the decree, an order was made by the Orphans’ Court, that the defendant in error have execution of the same.
Read the full summary
UPON the settlement of the account of the plaintiff in error, as guardian of Susan Crenshaw, who had intermarried with the defendant, the Orphans’ Court of Lowndes rendered a decree for the sum ascertained to be due against the plaintiff, in favor of the husband alone. About two years after the rendition of the decree, an order was made by the Orphans’ Court, that the defendant in error have execution of the same. To revise these proceedings, the guardian has sued a writ of error to this Court.
1Opinion of the CourtCollier, C. J.
The wife must be joined with the husband in a suit for the recovery of a debt due to her before marriage, or wherever the cause of action would survive to her. Huggins v. Durham, 2 Strange’s Rep. 726; Gratz, et al. v. Phillips, 1 Penn. Rep. 333; Swan v. Guage, 1 Hayw. Rep. 3; Tucker v. Gordon, 5 N. H. Rep. 564; Clapp v. Inhabitants of Stoughton, 10 Pick. Rep. 463. In the present case, it is true, that no formal suit was brought against the guardian, but without a citation, he came into Court and submitted his accounts for adjustment, yet the decree for the sum ascertained to be due, should…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Tucker v. GordonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1832
3Cited by6 opinions
- Mason v. McNeill's ExecutorsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1853
- Cobb v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1888
- Willis v. Willis' Adm'rSupreme Court of Alabama · 1846
- Petty v. WaffordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1847
- Hudson v. ModawellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1879
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.