73 Ga. 479 | Ga. | 1885
Matilda Dorsey brought suit against the city of Atlanta for damages, for injuries to her person by falling into an
’ When this evidence came out, by consent of counsel, the case was suspended and a motion made for a non-suit on the evidence then in, on the ground that the right of action for the injury received was in the husband. After argument, the court granted the non-suit.
‘ Subsequently, during the same term, plaintiif moved to reinstate her case, and the court, after argument, granted the motion, and reinstated the case. To this judgment, reinstating the case, defendant excepts.
The single question presented, therefore, in this case is, can a married woman, living with her husband, sue for a tort, being a physical injury to lier person, in her own name? . .
In 57 Ga., 252, this court held "that the husband could sue and join the wife in the action. The point now is, cathe wife sue alone?
By .the Code, §1754, following, the constitution of 1868, or according with it, all property, real, personal or choses in action, are made the separate property of the wife, and all property given to.,, inherited or. acquired by the wife, during, coverture,.is vested iii her... What property during, co’vertüre is thus vested’in her?' That enumerated in the first paragraph, to-wit, real; personal- or choses in-action. So that a chose in action acquired by the wife during coverture is made, lier separate property, and if so, of ■ course she can sue for it.. . . _
Is 'the right of action for a tort a chose' in action ?
By the Code, §2243, it is declared- that “ for every injury done by another to person or property, the law gives a tight to recover,'and a remedy to enforce it; such a right is a-chose, in action, and such a-remedy is an action or suit
Judgment affirmed.