Citizens' St. Ry. Co. v. Twiname

• Decision Date: 07 January 1890
• Parties: Citizens' Street Ry. Co. v. Twiname.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

121 Ind. 375

23 N.E. 159

Citizens' Street Ry. Co.

v.Twiname.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Jan. 7, 1890.

Appeal from superior court, Marion county; L. C. Walker, Judge.

Action by James E. Twiname against the Citizens' Street Railway Company for damages for injuries to plaintiff's wife. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appealed.

H. C. Allen, for appellant. Miller & Elam, for appellee.

Olds, J.

This action was brought by the appellee against the appellant in the court below for damages sustained by the appellee on account of alleged injuries received by his wife while she was a passenger on appellant's car. By the complaint the appellant sought to recover for medical attendance furnished, and loss of service and the society of, his wife. It is alleged with particularity in the complaint that before and at the time of the injury the plaintiff was carrying on a large and profitable millinery business, in which his wife was acting as the manager, and that the business was rendered more lucrative and profitable by reason of her personal services in the management of said business, and her services were of great value to the plaintiff, to-wit, $2,000; that by reason of the injury she had been unable to perform such duties as she was accustomed to perform in the management of said business, whereby the plaintiff had suffered damage. Issue was joined by answer in general denial, and trial had resulting in a verdict and judgment for the appellee. On the trial of the cause evidence was admitted, over the objection of the appellant, as to the value of the services of the wife of the appellee in the capacity in which she served the appellee as fore-woman, and the court instructed the jury to the effect that, if the plaintiff was the sole owner of the store, and his wife served him as forewoman or manager of the store, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover whatever loss, if any, he had sustained on account of being deprived of his wife's services, in whole or in part, in his household affairs or business, by reason of her disability.

It is contended by counsel for appellant that the plaintiff cannot recover for the services of his wife as a clerk or assistant in his business; that the right of the husband to recover damages for loss of services of the wife is limited to services within the household; that by the statute (section 5130, Rev. St. 1881) “a married woman may carry on any trade or business, and perform any labor or services, on her sole and separate account. The earnings and profits of any married woman accruing from the trade, business, services, or labor, other than labor for her husband or family, shall be her sole and separate property,” and that the wife is entitled to recover for her own services. This statute in no way changes the situation between husband and wife. It neither attempts to exonerate her from the performance of any proper services for the benefit of the husband, either in the household or in his business, nor does it attempt to create any liability on the part of the husband to pay for such services....