Monahan v. Monahan
Supreme Court of Vermont
Appear in Chancery. Heard on the report of a master at the September Term, 1902, Chittenden County, Start, Chancellor. Decree, pro' forma for the orator. The defendant appealed. A wife is not entitled to her separate earnings, as against her husband. This is especially true, if she mingles them with the funds of her husband.
Read the full summary
Appear in Chancery. Heard on the report of a master at the September Term, 1902, Chittenden County, Start, Chancellor. Decree, pro' forma for the orator. The defendant appealed. A wife is not entitled to her separate earnings, as against her husband. This is especially true, if she mingles them with the funds of her husband. Schouler on H. & W., § 294; McCluskey v. Provident Institution, 103 Mass. 3007 Kelley v. Drew, 12 Allen 107. In the absence of an agreement to that effect, none of the money could become the property of the wife. In re Brown’s Bsl., 65 Vt. 331; Keniston v. Keniston, 56…
1Dissent
Tyr&r, J.,
dissenting. I am not able to concur with the majority of the judges in some of the views above expressed.
It is true that the orator did not intend that the defendant should acquire title to' the securities that were placed in his name; that there was no delivery of them, and that the defendant obtained possession of them wrongfully and against the will of the orator. Do’ these facts take the case out of the *149general rules above stated, so that the orator can have a decree for a return of the property?
It is elementary that while a court of equity will endeavor to- enforce justice in…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- President of the Bank of the United States v. OwensSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
- Coppell v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Bank v. LanierSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Bartle v. NuttSupreme Court of the United States · 1830
- Shotwell v. MooreSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.