Story Case

Earl Day gave an automobile to his wife, Helen, as a Christmas gift. Shortly after this, a dispute occurred between them, and Day took possession of the automobile without the consent of his wife. She thereupon sold the machine to Arnold Hey, who demanded possession from Day. Upon his refusal to deliver the machine, Hey brought an action in replevin to compel Day to surrender the property. Whether or not the action can be maintained depends upon whether Day had the right to take possession from his wife.

Ruling Court Case. William H. Rixford Vs. Mary Manning, Volume 44 Illinois Reports, Page 129

On February 11, 1865, the plaintiff was united in marriage to Mary E. Rixford. A few days before his marriage he had enlisted in the army of the United States, receiving therefor a bounty of $400. After his marriage, and before leaving for service he turned the money over to his wife. On the 21st day of the same month, Mary loaned $365 of this money to the defendant, Mary Manning. For the repayment thereof, a note was given by Mary Manning payable to Mary E. Rixford. Upon his return from the war, "William procured possession of the note in question and brought suit thereon against the defendant. It was contended by the defendant that William could not sue upon the note, because the note was made to Mary Rixford for money which the latter owned and had loaned to the defendant.

Decision: On the hypothesis that the money in question was a gift from the husband to the wife, such transfer is void at law and may be recalled by the husband. This being the case, the act of the husband in bringing suit was a sufficient act to revoke the gift.

He was entitled to recover thereon.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

At common law, personal property could not be given by the husband to the wife. Such an attempt was without any effect. He was entitled to all her personal property. The very moment that title to personal property became vested in her, title thereto automatically passed to the husband. Obviously under these circumstances, the husband could make no gift of personal property to his wife. The courts, however, early made one development from this strict rule in recognizing that a husband might give the wife property as her sole and separate estate, and such a gift is valid and binding.

In the Story Case, it is not stated that there was any express intention to have the automobile considered as the sole and separate estate of the wife, and therefore Day could recall the gift at any time. He has the legal right and title and Hey's action cannot be sustained.