Turner v. Davenport
| Decision Date | 17 June 1901 |
| Citation | 49 A. 463,63 N.J.E. 288 |
| Parties | TURNER v. DAVENPORT et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court)
Appeal from court of chancery.
Action by Fannie Turner against James H. Davenport and others. Decree for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Walter J. Knight, for appellant.
This was a bill by a married woman to have it decreed that the defendants, constituting a co-partnership, of which her husband is a member, pay her for her services to the firm. The opinion of the chancellor in this case, as reported in 47 Atl. 766, correctly states the facts. The performance of the services was admitted. The amount claimed is found by the chancellor to have been reasonable. The claim is a just one. The only question is, can a wife recover for her services to a firm in which her husband is a member? The claim of right to recover is first put upon the ground that a wife may contract with her husband, and maintain a suit in equity, even against him, to enforce such a contract, under the amendment to our married women's act passed June 13, 1895 (P. L. 1895, p. 821). The insistment is that this amendment of 1895 so modifies the married women's act, approved March 27. 1874 (Rev. St. 1874, p. 469, § 5), as to permit her to contract with any person, and hence with her husband, and making such contracts enforceable, both at law and in equity, by or against such married woman, even as to her husband. 2 Gen. St. p. 2017, § 26. A full discussion of the effect of the amendment of 1895 will be found in the opinion of the learned chancellor in this case. With his conclusions upon this statute we agree. His construction of the statute is adopted by us on this branch of the case, for the reasons stated by him. Turner v. Davenport (N. J. Ch.) 47 Atl. 766.
The other ground upon which reversal is asked, is that the learned chancellor erred in denying the relief prayed, and holding that the complainant is not entitled to relief in equity, because the money sought to be decreed to be paid to her is for her wages, —for her labor and personal services to the firm in which her husband is a member,— the right to which wages is in her husband, by virtue of the marriage relation, and hence no part of her separate estate, for which she may maintain a bill in equity against her husband or firm in which he is a member. That bill could be maintained at common law by a wife, even against her husband, where he held money of his wife's separate estate, the learned chancellor concedes in this case, and cites the authorities fully to sustain that position. Id. This court held the same doctrine in a later case. Adoue v. Spencer (N. J. Err. & App.) 49 Atl. 10. It is well settled at common law that the wages and earnings of the wife became, or could become, by reduction to possession, the absolute property of the husband. Moneys due her were choses in action, which he could reduce to possession. Our married women's act has intervened, if not to entirely change this, certainly to change the presumptions arising from the mere fact of services performed and wages due a wife. She may now contract with any person. She may engage to labor or serve in any capacity for wages. She may engage in business on her own account. She may sue for the recovery of debts or wages due her, apart from her husband. If a husband may still be said to be in a position to claim his wife's earnings, if he demand or make claim to them before they are paid, or assert a right thereto as against her claim or suit therefor, his right is not one which courts will assume to exist, or allow by operation of law, to defeat the wife's claim or suit to recover for such earnings when due. Under our statute permitting a wife to contract "with any person" as if she were a feme sole, it will, at least, be presumed, in default of any dissent on the part of the husband, and certainly when it appears he had knowledge of it, that he assents to her receiving the wages of her labor to her own use. By section 11 of our married women's act, a wife is given express statutory right to maintain a suit in her own name for her wages and earnings, which are by our statute made her separate property. 2 Gen. St p. 2014. Section 4 of our married women's act makes "the wages and earnings of any married woman acquired or gained by her after the passage of this act in any employment, occupation or trade in which she is employed and which she carries on, separately from her husband, * * * her sole and separate property as though she...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. First Nat. Bank of Hattiesbubg
...Switzer v. Kee, 35 N.E. 160; Overbeck v. Ahlmeier, 106 Ill.App. 606; Miller v. Smith, 137 Ill.App. 467; Turner v. Davenport, 47 A. 766, 49 A. 463; Butler v. Ives, 29 N. B. 654; Ricker Ricker, 143 N.E. 539; Peoples Trust Co. v. Merrill, 99 A. 650. We submit that while in states having enabli......
-
Koplik v. C. P. Trucking Corp.
...Fike v. Fike, 3 N.J.Misc. 485, 128 A. 849 (Ch.1925), affirmed 99 N.J.Eq. 424, 132 A. 922 (E. & A.1926). Cf. Turner v. Davenport, 63 N.J.Eq. 288, 49 A. 463 (E. & A.1901); Collins v. Babbitt, 67 N.J.Eq. 165, 58 A. 481 (Ch.1904). In the Fike case the wife prevailed in an action to compel her h......
-
Bendler v. Bendler
...N.J.Eq. 589, 33 A. 50 (E. & A. 1894); Turner v. Davenport, 61 N.J.Eq. 18, 47 A. 766 (Ch. 1900), reversed on other grounds, 63 N.J.Eq. 288, 49 A. 463 (E. & A. 1901). Yet it is said that contracts of husband and wife inter se are enforceable in equity if 'shown to be fair;' and that 'if enfor......
-
Romeo v. Romeo
...sole and separate property. This abrogated the common law rule that a husband was entitled to his wife's earnings. See Turner v. Davenport, 63 N.J.Eq. 288, 49 A. 463 (E & A 1901). The act further provided that a married woman could sue and be sued in her own name, without joining her husban......