Story Case

John Sampson became the husband of Helen Gould. At the time of their marriage one Rowen owed to Helen Gould the sum of two thousand dollars. Two years after the marriage, the wife died and this money had never been collected. The parties lived in a state which had never, by statute, changed the old common law rule that the wife's personal property goes to the husband when they are married. Sampson maintained that he had the right to collect this entire account against the deceased wife's other claimants. Is he correct?

Ruling Court Case. Erringdale Vs. Biggs, Volume 148 Illinois Reports, Page 403

A man and woman married in Kentucky in 1827. At the time of the marriage she had considerable money, possession of which was taken by the husband after marriage. They moved to the state of Illinois in 1834, where he purchased property with the money in question, taking title thereto in his own name. In this action, it was contended by the wife that since her money was used in purchasing the same, she was entitled to an interest therein.

Mr. Justice Phillips said in the opinion of the Court: "It was a rule of the common law that chattels personal or money in possession of the wife at the time of her marriage at once became the property of the husband. This also made after acquired personal estate coming to and in possession of the wife the property of the husband, unless settled upon her as her equitable separate estate. The claim in this case, that the land in controversy was purchased with money belonging to the wife, cannot be sustained, as the husband and wife married in 1827 and came to this state in 1834. Any money or personal property belonging to the wife and in possession at or from the time of her marriage to the time of the purchase, having become the property of the husband under the rule of the common law, when he purchased the land and took title to himself, he took it free from any resulting trust in favor of the wife and the title thereto vested in him absolutely."

Accordingly it was held that the wife had no interest whatsoever in this property by virtue of the fact that money, formerly belonging to her, had been used as the purchase money.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

The common law judges were very fond of the fiction that man and woman became one when they married.

They said that the identity of the woman merged into that of the husband. Accordingly, it was held that the husband became entitled to all the personal property which belonged to the wife when they married. Such personal property as domestic animals, furniture, and money became absolutely the property of the husband immediately upon marriage. Debts which were owed to the wife, or claims against third persons, commonly called "choses-in-action" did not become absolutely the property of the husband upon marriage; but he was given a conditional right to them. If he collected them during the continuance of the marriage relation they belonged to him absolutely. Otherwise they survived to the wife.

In the Story Case, Sampson had the right to collect the account owing to the wife only so long as they were married. If she died, or if they had been divorced, this right in the husband would cease. At her death the right would go to her proper heirs. The husband's rights in this particular case may be those of an heir. A divorce would, similarly, revert the right to the wife.

The old common law has been changed by statutes in many states by which it is provided that all the personal property of the wife shall continue to be hers after the marriage.