Dawson v. Dawson

• Decision Date: 17 December 1931
• Docket Number: 1 Div. 664.
• Citation: 224 Ala. 13,138 So. 414
• Parties: DAWSON v. DAWSON.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

138 So. 414

224 Ala. 13

DAWSON v. DAWSON.

1 Div. 664.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 17, 1931

Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; J. Blocker Thornton Judge.

Action for damages for personal injuries by Isobel M. Dawson against H. K. Dawson. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Harry T. Smith & Caffey, of Mobile, for appellant.

Armbrecht Hand & Twitty, of Mobile, for appellee.

ANDERSON C.J.

The question is, Can the wife maintain an action in tort committed in Mississippi against her husband in the courts of Alabama for which she could not recover under the laws of Mississippi notwithstanding she could do so in Alabama, the parties being citizens of Alabama, when the injury occurred or the tort was committed in the state of Mississippi?

It is well settled by the decisions of this court that, where an accident occurs in another state, the courts of this state will look to the substantive law of that state to determine whether the defendant under that law has breached any legal duty to the plaintiff. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v Carroll, 97 Ala. 126, 11 So. 803, 18 L. R. A. 433, 38 Am. St. Rep. 163; Caine v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 209 Ala. 181, 95 So. 876, 32 A. L. R. 793; Deavors v. So. Express Co., 200 Ala. 372, 76 So. 288; Code of Alabama 1923, § 5681.

And this rule obtains when the parties are domiciled in Alabama and not in Mississippi where the accident occurred or the injury was inflicted, and notwithstanding the laws in Alabama may give a right of action and the same may be denied by the laws of Mississippi. Carroll Case, supra; Slater v. Mexican Nat. R. R. Co., 194 U.S. 120, 24 S.Ct. 581, 48 L.Ed. 900; Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Humble, 181 U.S. 57, 21 S.Ct. 526, 45 L.Ed. 747. Indeed, it is conceded in argument of appellant's counsel that the laws of Mississippi govern in this case and that a wife domiciled with her husband in Mississippi cannot sue her husband for any tort committed upon her in that state. But it is contended that it has not been decided in the Mississippi case or cases "that an Alabama wife who is tortiously injured by her Alabama husband, while in transit through Mississippi, cannot recover from her husband for the wrong thus done to her. That is the question and the only question before this court." True, the Mississippi case pleaded and the ones cited, for far as appears, deal with a married woman who is a resident of Mississippi and not a resident of Alabama or some other state, but it would be a most violent assumption to hold that the Mississippi court intended to discriminate against the wives of that state in favor of those of another state, and we must construe the same as applicable to all wives who seek redress for torts inflicted upon them by their husbands in said state regardless of the domicile of the parties.

We think that our case of Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Carroll, 97 Ala. 126, 11 So. 803, 808, 18 L. R. A. 433, 38 Am. St. Rep. 163,

while not involving a suit by a wife, answers by way of reason and analogy every contention of appellant's counsel, that there is, or should be, an exception to the Mississippi rule in favor of married women injured in Mississippi and who reside elsewhere, that the marital rights, regulations, and disabilities as fixed by the laws of the home state should go with them into other states, and from which we quote:

"Mississippi has the same right to establish governmental rules for such persons within her borders as Alabama, and she has established rules which are different from those of our law; and the conduct of such persons toward each other is, when its legality is brought in question, to be adjudged by the rules of the one or the other state, as it falls territorially within the one or the other. The doctrine is like that which prevails in respect of other relations, as that of man and wife.

...