Rudd v. Peters
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Crittenden Circuit Court in Chancery. Hon. L. L. Mack, Judge of the Circuit Court. 1. The husband was the agent and trustee of the wife, in fact and in law, and the revenues, incomes and wages of her separate estate, are bound in equity to pay appellant the amount due him. 8 Arle., 366; 3 lb., 21; 9 Ib., 202; 17 Ib., 154. The possession of the husband was the possession of the wife. 6 Hums., 160 ; Wheeler on Slavery, 90. Appellant, the value of whose sendees and…
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Crittenden Circuit Court in Chancery. Hon. L. L. Mack, Judge of the Circuit Court. 1. The husband was the agent and trustee of the wife, in fact and in law, and the revenues, incomes and wages of her separate estate, are bound in equity to pay appellant the amount due him. 8 Arle., 366; 3 lb., 21; 9 Ib., 202; 17 Ib., 154. The possession of the husband was the possession of the wife. 6 Hums., 160 ; Wheeler on Slavery, 90. Appellant, the value of whose sendees and property inured to the benefit of the wife’s property, was entitled to compensation from her estate. 4 Heisle, 104; 4…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
1. Witness: Mar■malí eoT- % an us t dm in is* trator. First, as to Mrs. Peters’ testimony. She was the real defendant. Her interests alone were assailed by the suit'; for after his discharge in bankruptcy the husband was not. liable in person or property. She was testifying for herself, against a stranger, and no policy of law springing from the marital relations had any application.
At the time of her deposition the suit stood in the name of the administrator of the original plaintiff. She could not have testified under the statute as to transactions between herself and Doggett. But…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. HumbleSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Hoffman v. McFaddenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1892
- Hannaford v. DowdleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905