Sumner v. McCray

• Decision Date: 31 May 1875
• Citation: 60 Mo. 493
• Parties: A. SUMNER, Appellant, v. ANDREW F. MCCRAY, GARNISHEE OF CHARLES T. WESTCOMB AND JOSEPH CARTER, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

60 Mo. 493

A. SUMNER, Appellant,

v.ANDREW F. MCCRAY, GARNISHEE OF CHARLES T. WESTCOMB AND JOSEPH CARTER, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

May Term, 1875.

Appeal from Caldwell Circuit Court.

Crosby Johnson with M. A Low, for Appellant.

I. Our statute does not restrain the husband from collecting in and reducing to possession the choses in action of his wife. (Boyce vs. Cayce, 17 Mo., 47; Clark vs. Bank, 47 Mo., 17.) And it makes no difference whether the money or bond arises from the sale of her land or other property. (Tillman vs. Tillman, 50 Mo., 40.) If there is no particular agreement on the subject, but she voluntarily parts with her land and permits the cash avails of it to go into his hands, this cash is like any other which he receives during the coverture from her, absolutely his. (1 Bish. Mar. Women, § 605; Mahoney vs. Bland, 14 Ind., 176; Talbott vs. Dennis, 1 Ind., 471; Martin vs. Martin, 1 Const., 473; See 12 Ind., 170; 3 Ind., 545; Woodford vs. Stephens, 51 Mo., 443.)

J. M. Hoskinson, for Respondent.

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

On a judgment in favor of plaintiff, against one Westcomb, defendant was summoned as garnishee. In his answer he stated that he had received a check from Westcomb, but was informed that it was the property of Westcomb's wife. Whether it was hers or not, so as to be liable for her husband's debts or otherwise, was the issue submitted to the court.

The evidence all showed that the money which the check represented was derived from the sale of land belonging to her in the State of Indiana; that the land was purchased by her with her own money long before her marriage, and that it was sold since, and that the check was for one of the instalments due thereon, and that her husband, in receiving and transferring it, only acted as her agent. The judgment was for the defendant.

Our statute provides that “the rents, issues and products of the real estate of any married woman, and all moneys and obligations arising from the sale of such real estate, and the interest of her husband in her right in any real estate which belonged to her before marriage, or which she may have acquired by gift, grant, devise or inheritance during coverture, shall during coverture, be exempt from attachment or levy of execution for the sole debts of her husband.” (2 Wagn. Stat., 935, § 14.)

It is contended that the statute cannot govern the case, because the wife's land was situated in the State of Indiana, and the law was...