Dollins v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 11 February 1922
• Docket Number: No. 2914.,2914.
• Citation: 236 S.W. 1063
• Parties: DOLLINS v. ROBINSON
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

236 S.W. 1063

DOLLINS v. ROBINSON

No. 2914.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

January 14, 1922.

Rehearing Denied February 11, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Butler County; Almon Ing, Judge.

Action by Lizzie Dollins against Charles E. Robinson. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

F. G. Taylor, of Corning, Ark., and D. R. Lentz and John A. Gloriod, both of Poplar Bluff, for appellant.

W. A. Welker, of Poplar Bluff, for respondent.

FARRINTON, J.

This suit was begun by Lizzie Dollins, wife of John Dollins, against the defendant, who is sheriff of Butler county, by filing a petition in replevin, asking to recover from such sheriff certain live stock, consisting of hogs, cattle, and horses, claimed to be owned by her. The controversy arises over a levy made by the sheriff on a judgment in favor of Felix G. Taylor against John Dollins, husband of plaintiff. The said Taylor recovered a judgment in Arkansas against John Dollins several years prior to 1918, and in October, 1910, he again recovered a judgment against Dollins on his Arkansas judgment. Several executions were issued, and were returned unsatisfied. On July 16, 1919, an execution was issued and placed in the hands of the defendant, the sheriff, under which he took possession of the property which the plaintiff seeks to recover in this action.

The assignments of error taken up in defendant's brief go to a demurrer to the evidence, and to the giving of instructions asked by plaintiff, and the refusal of instructions asked by defendant; and we may say that many of the questions raised in appellant's brief finally center on appellant's main proposition, which is that, under the undisputed facts, the plaintiff could not recover, because it is claimed she failed to show that the property was hers, which leads to a consideration of section 7328, R. S. Mo. 1919, relating to personal property of a married woman.

The evidence in this case, as sworn to by the plaintiff and corroborated by her own son and her stepson and several other Witnesses, shows that the plaintiff was the wife of John Dollins, that John was for many years prior to the passage of the prohibition law addicted to the use of alcoholic drinks, and that the whole weight and burden of maintaining the family of a wife and ten children fell on Lizzie, the plaintiff. It is shown that from time to time they lived on rented farms, and that she not only did the housework, which is customary for wives to do, but she raised the live stock, attended to it, raised the corn and cotton, which she would from time to time trade for hogs, cows, and horses. The record before us shows that she was the moving spirit in the family, that kept it up and going.::t is true that her husband at times had some things to sell on these farms, but it is_ shown that at all times, when buyers would come to buy the stock, he would refer them to his wife, when it came to certain of this property which is now replevined, and tell them that it belonged to her. It is also shown that, when she wanted to sell or make a trade of certain of her personal property, she would make the trade herself, and at times sent her husband along with it to deliver it and to receive the money. It is shown, as contended by appellant, that she had nothing when she, married him, that she inherited nothing, that she never received any money on account of personal injuries, and, citing as an authority the, case of Mummer v. Trost, 81 Mo. 425, it is claimed that, inasmuch as she was living on the farm with the family and husband, and did this work, the presumption is that the proceeds derived from her labor, care, and work in the cotton, field, in...