Story Case

Miss Anna "Waldo, the owner of considerable real estate, became involved in a boundary line dispute with Edward Hilton. Miss Waldo became angry and instructed the servants to trespass and commit injury to the property of Hilton. Before Hilton collected any damage for the losses suffered, Miss Waldo married John Simpson. Thereupon Hilton brought suit against both Mr. and Mrs. Simpson to recover for the losses. Simpson replied that he was not liable since the state statute had given the married woman power over her own property, and the right to retain this property; that this abolished the common law, since there was not any reason for holding the husband. Hilton answered that this particular feature of the common law holding the husband for the wife's pre-marriage liabilities was not expressly abolished, and therefore it was still in force. Who is correct?

Ruling Court Case. Culmer Vs. Wilson, Volume 13 Utah Reports, Page 129; Volume 57 American State Reports, Page 713

The circumstances leading up to this case were as follows: Culmer, as agent for Mrs. Belle Tompkins (later Mrs. Wilson) had, at her request, brought an action of forcible entry and detainer before a United States Commissioner against Anna Marks. This commissioner rendered judgment in favor of Culmer and Mrs. Tompkins. In pursuance of this judgment Mrs. Tompkins went into possession of the land previously occupied by Anna Marks. Anna Marks then sued Culmer, Mr. and Mrs. Tompkins jointly for trespass on her property on the ground that the United States Commissioner, by whose judgment she had been deprived of her property, did not have jurisdiction. Judgment in this second case was rendered in favor of Anna Marks. Culmer and Mrs. Tompkins, being joint wrong-doers, owed the damages to Anna Marks jointly. Culmer, however, paid the damages in full. By this time Mrs. Tompkins had been divorced by her husband and had married R. C. Wilson. This action was brought by Culmer against Mr. and Mrs. Wilson to recover contribution towards damages paid by him as joint wrong-doer with Mrs. "Wilson.

It was contended by R. C. Wilson, one of the defendants, that he was not liable because the statutes which gave to the woman control over her property also gave her the power to contract, to sue and be sued and that it relieved him of his liability for her contract and civil wrongs.

Decision: At common law, the husband had almost absolute control over the person of his wife, as well as her property, and he became the arbiter of her fortune. She was in a condition of complete dependence; she could not contract in her own name, was bound to obey him, and her legal existence was merged into that of her husband. They were termed and considered one at law. As a consequence he was made liable for her debts contracted before her marriage and for her civil wrongs as well. After modern legislation on the subject, which gives the wife control over her own property, the power to sue and be sued and to contract, this liability on the part of the husband for her wrongs committed before marriage no longer exists.

Therefore the husband was not liable for this tort committed by his wife before her marriage to him.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

At common law a husband was liable for the civil wrongs committed by the wife before marriage, provided judgment was recovered on them during their joint lives. Modern legislation, which gives to the wife separate property rights, the right to contract, the right to sue and be sued, holds that the husband is no longer liable for wrongs committed by her before marriage, since the reason for this rule is not in existence. Some courts abolish this liability of the common law by implication. Other courts hold that unless it is expressly abolished by the statute, this old common law is still in existence, and the husband is liable for pre-nuptial obligations, although the wife retains her property. Some states have by statute abolished the rule that a husband is liable for the wife's pre-nuptial debts, and in these states the decision is certain. Changes are constantly being made in the statutes of the various states and the reader must look to the most recent legislation of his own state to decide a particular case.