Finnigan v. Hibernia Savings & Loan Society
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. The lower court found that the plaintiff and the defendant Daniel Finnigan were husband and wife, and had been such since the year 1850, and that while this relation existed plaintiff made the sum of $1,874.29, by renting rooms and conducting a saloon business, within five years last past, and that during this time the defendant Daniel Finnigan contributed nothing to the support of the plaintiff or his family, and that plaintiff and defendant did not cohabit, because…
1Per curiam
The respondents’ proposition in this case is, that money earned by a wife may be taken for the debt of her husband. The question is solved by a provision of the Code not referred to by counsel on either side. It is section 168 of the Civil Code, and reads: “ The earnings of the wife are not liable for the debts of the husband.”
That part of the judgment appealed from, together with the order denying the motion for a new trial, reversed, and cause remanded,
2Cited by2 opinions
- Street v. BertoloneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- In re Estate of Foster, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco1909