Hamilton v. Booth
Mississippi Supreme Court
Error to the Circuit Court of Carroll County. Hon. William Cothran, Judge. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. 1. The wife cannot, as against a judgment-creditor, appropriate the fruits of her husband’s labor simply because her mules were used-in making the crop, and she furnished supplies; to the laborers till June 1st. There was no consideration for his giving her the fruits of -his labor.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Carroll County. Hon. William Cothran, Judge. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. 1. The wife cannot, as against a judgment-creditor, appropriate the fruits of her husband’s labor simply because her mules were used-in making the crop, and she furnished supplies; to the laborers till June 1st. There was no consideration for his giving her the fruits of -his labor. If regarded as. a voluntary gift, it was void as against his creditors, he .being-insolvent ; and if it were the. fact that he was supported by his wife, that would form no consideration. The…
1Opinion of the CourtChalmers, J.
Certain .judgment-creditors of W. A. Booth caused execution to be levied upon the cotton in controversy, as his property. Thereupon his' wife sued out- her writ of replevin, -claiming it as belonging to herself.
It seems to have been produced under the following circumstances : It was grown upon a tract of land leased by the hus-. band from a relative, the only rent charged or paid consisting *62of repairs upon the houses and fences. It was produced by the labor of the husband, his two minor sons, and a laborer, the latter of whom received a part of the crop as wages, and who claims no interest…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Gage v. . DauchyNew York Court of Appeals · 1866
- Hooben v. BidwellOhio Supreme Court · 1847
3Cited by4 opinions
- Trapnell v. ConklynWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1892
- Seeber v. RandallCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1900
- Applegate v. TaylorMississippi Supreme Court · 1879
- Lake v. BenderNevada Supreme Court · 1884