Bruce v. Bruce
| Decision Date | 20 May 1892 |
| Citation | 95 Ala. 563,11 So. 197 |
| Parties | BRUCE v. BRUCE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Conecuh county; JOHN P. HUBBARD, Judge.
Detinue by Eliza Bruce against Stephen Bruce, her husband, for the recovery of cattle, Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.
This was a statutory action of detinue, brought by the appellee Eliza Bruce, against Stephen Bruce, her husband, for the recovery of certain described cattle. In addition to the general issue, the defendant pleaded the coverture of the plaintiff, and excepted to the court's sustaining the plaintiff's demurrer to his plea of coverture. The evidence for the plaintiff tended to show that the cattle sued for were bought by her, and were paid for with money belonging to her separate estate, and the services of her son, who was the stepson of the defendant. The testimony for the defendant tended to show that the cattle here sued for had been given to the plaintiff by him, and that they had been originally paid for by him with his money; and that after the separation of the plaintiff and the defendant, he had told her to take the cattle, and, after she had taken possession of them by his gift, they returned to him, and were in his possession at the time of the suit. The court, as a part of its general charge, instructed the jury as follows "If the jury are reasonaby satisfied from the evidence that Eliza Bruce, the plaintiff, bought the cattle from Howard and Ingram, and that they sold her the cattle, and that she paid for them, either with her own money or with money which she received as the proceeds of her own labor and that her husband gave her her labor, or the proceeds thereof, and that the other cattle sued for are the increase of the cattle thus bought from Howard and Ingram, then she has such a right to them as will enable her to maintain this suit therefor; and if, in the other respects, she has made out her cause, she will be entitled to a verdict." The defendant excepted to this portion of the general charge, and also separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of the following charges requested by him: (1) "The court charges the jury that it is incumbent on the plaintiff, Eliza Bruce, to prove to your satisfaction that the cattle sued for belonged to her when the suit was brought, and that the defendant, Stephen Bruce, had no title or interest in the cattle, and no right to detain them." (3) "The court charges the jury that if you are satisfied by the evidence that the plaintiff is a married woman, and was a married woman at the time she brought this suit, and has been a married woman ever since the bringing of this suit, then she cannot maintain this suit as it is here brought." (4) "The court charges the jury that if the proof satisfies you the plaintiff and defendant are husband and wife, and were husband and wife at the commencement of this suit, and are now husband and wife, although not living together, you should find for defendant." (5) "The court charges the jury that if you believe the evidence you should find for the defendant." (6) "The court charges the jury that if the proof reasonably satisfies you that after the 28th day of February, 1887, the cows that had been previously divided between the parties to this suit went back to the defendant's, and that the plaintiff went or sent back to the defendant for said cattle, and the defendant intended this as a settlement of said division of the property, then this would estop the plaintiff from bringing this suit, and your verdict should be for the defendant." There was judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant brings this appeal, and assigns as error the rulings of the court, upon the pleadings and charges.
Stallworth & Burnett, for appellant.
Bowles & Robb, for appellee.
The statute provides in general terms that the wife must sue alone for the recovery of her separate property. Code Ala. § 2347. The language is broad enough to include a suit by her against her husband. The conclusion that the wife may now sue her husband at law is supported by other provisions of the married woman's statute. Important contract and property rights of the wife, for the enforcement of which the statute requires her to sue alone, are so far without the influence of the marital relation that they may as well be violated by the husband as by any stranger. The earnings of the wife are her separate property. She has the control and management of her separate estate, and is entitled to the rents, income and profits. She may contract with her husband. If he is living apart from her, without fault upon her part, or if he be of unsound mind, she may convey or dispose of her real or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. State
...§ 30-4-11]. That she may sue her husband for the recovery of personal property belonging to her has been expressly decided. Bruce v. Bruce, 95 Ala. 563, 11 South. 197. The right to sue her husband to recover from him possession of her realty rests upon the same statutory provision and the s......
-
Orr v. Dayton And Muncie Traction Company
......Sackett. (1883), 108 U.S. 132, 2 S.Ct. 375, 27 L.Ed. 678;. Drury v. Hayden (1884), 111 U.S. 223, 4. S.Ct. 405, 28 L.Ed. 408; Bruce v. Bruce. (1891), 95 Ala. 563, 11 So. 197. . . [178. Ind. 54] In view of the state of the record, and the facts. disclosed ......
-
Orr v. Dayton & M. Traction Co.
...v. Sackett, 108 U. S. 132, 2 Sup. Ct. 375, 27 L. Ed. 678;Drury v. Hayden, 111 U. S. 223, 4 Sup. Ct. 405, 28 L. Ed. 408;Bruce v. Bruce, 95 Ala. 563, 11 South. 197. In view of the state of the record and the facts disclosed by it, as herein shown, we think justice requires that a new trial be......
-
Friedman v. Friedman
...La Rue v. Loveman, Joseph & Loeb, 220 Ala. 2, 127 So. 241 (1929); Minge v. Clark, 193 Ala. 447, 69 So. 421 (1915); Bruce v. Bruce, 95 Ala. 563, 11 So. 197 (1892); and Hooper v. Britt, 35 Ala. App. 612, 51 So.2d 547 (1951). Other cases involving common-law detinue include proof that the defe......