Schnabel v. Betts

• Decision Date: 22 March 1887
• Parties: SCHNABEL and another v. BETTS.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

1 So. 692

23 Fla. 178

SCHNABEL and another v. BETTS.

Florida Supreme Court

March 22, 1887

Appeal from circuit court, Duval county.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Real estate of the wife will be charged in equity with the value of improvements which she causes to be built thereon.

The insolvency of the husband is not a necessary condition to the power of the wife to so charge her real estate.

The husband is an incompetent witness in a civil suit against his wife, except in a suit between husband and wife for divorce.

This court will, where the evidence is before it, and the decree of the court below is for too large an amount, correct such decree, and render here a final decree for the amount the evidence shows to be due.

COUNSEL

M. C. Jordan, for appellants.

C. P. &amp J. C. Cooper, for appellee.

OPINION

McWHORTER C.J.

The appellee, Charles P. Betts, filed his bill against Mrs Schnabel and her husband, George E. Schnabel. The facts set forth are that Mrs. Schnabel, a married woman residing in Jacksonville, and owner of a lot in said city described as follows 'West half of lot two (2) of block eighty-six (86) of the city of Jacksonville,'--which was her separate legal property, negotiated with the appellee for the erection of a residence thereon. The appellee, with the consent of the husband, agreed to build the house for a sum agreed on. The house was completed by the appellee, and received by the appellants, Schnabel and wife. That a court of equity will charge the real estate of the wife with the value of improvements which she procures to be erected thereon has been several times decided by this court.

There was a demurrer to the bill on the ground that it did not allege that George E. Schnabel was insolvent or that judgment and execution had been obtained against him without avail. No authority has been cited that sustains this position, nor can it be supported upon any legal or equitable theory of which we are cognizant. It has never, to our knowledge, been decided that the husband's insolvency was a necessary prerequisite to the power of the wife to bind her separate estate in the two methods recognized by our decisions.

The appellants assign as error the exclusion of the testimony of George E. Schnabel, the husband of Mrs. Schnabel. The common-law rule which denied to the husband the right to testify for or against his wife in a civil suit against her has not been...