*1 S. Willott. Edward A. Appellant, Willott, Ida Two, September plaintiff. Edmund Burke for H. respond- William Becker for
Clark, Boggs, & Peterson and Cave ent. *2 FITZSIMMONS, C. The raised appeal whether this we should previous overrule a (Rogers decision of this court
Rogers, 265 383) holding that a wife main tain a civil action husband for a tort. The Circuit Randolph Court of County sitting at Huntsville sustained appellant’s demurrer to petition by sought which she to recover from respondent, husband, damages $10,000 in the sum of personal injuries suffered petition automobile accident. The alleged amended respondent that at a time appellant when were husband riding and wife were an automobile the}1- owned respondent husband; appellant driving was the car and that they proceeding were Missouri, City, Moberly, from Kansas Mis souri; point that at a Slater, Missouri, between Marshall and while the car traveling speed was twenty-five at a per hour, miles re spondent negligently thereby steering wrested the wheel from her and caused the automobile ditch, to swerve and to turn over as a appellant direct permanent result of suffered severe and in juries. al., the supra, plaintiff case of defend ants for imprisonment causing for false com to be asylum. mitted to and confined in de an insane Defendant ground upon petition murred the the disclosed that he plaintiff were ’that it husband and wife hence did not state a cause of The defendants demurred for other the reason action. defendant, misjoinder parties appearing upon there was petition Rogers, plaintiff face of the that defendant were husband and, and wife. trial all plaintiff court sustained demurrers declining further, plead judgment rendered final de favor of fendants, judgment plaintiff appealed from which to this court. judgment proceedings dis was affirmed as to judgment missed as to him. hut the was reversed to the other ground misjoinder upon that a of defendants does defendants a rule defeat an action delicto. not as ex ground instant
The demurrer .case wife plaintiff, petition that the upon the face of appeared defendant, sue the capacity defendant, legal had not case,' in the this court opinion that We are of husband. question there upon the Missouri correctly stated the law supra, therefore that again, and raised and here involved affirmed. should be instant case trial court a cause of wife had nor law neither husband At common person. to his or other against the is whether the again here Rogers ease and decided changed rule of the common Act has Woman’s Missouri Married an action. Sections giving to a this act and sections of are two Revised are as follows: name, with may, own in her party, sue and joining as a or without *3 the same force having jurisdiction, with this State the courts of judgment in the cause sole, any and effect if she was a and as femme ’’ if she were unmarried. effect as the same force and shall have a sole shall be deemed femme carry and business on her own transact her to on so far as to enable sued, and with, and be and contracted to sue account, contract be to judgments against property her and have enforced to enforce her, may be sued at against and sue and for or may be rendered joined being a husband without her equity, in with or or may exemption invoke all and Provided, woman party; a married protection personal and real in force for laws now homestead family, except in a cases where the the head of property owned rights and for the exemption homestead had claimed such property.” of his own protection 1929, is the third section of the act. 3003, Revised
Section upon that section her placas reliance for Although appellant obviously separate prop- alone yet relates to contention, it so set it rights married woman that we do not out or intend erty aof give notice here. it further to present Rogers case, supra, this court examined Sections 704 pointed out that Section is an amendment to a
704 and It required except specified married woman in certain which a statute joined being deroga 704 husband. Section in be with her actions to law, grant any greater be held to power the common tion of woman, namely a express, jo:n that married its terms without than husband, any may ing maintain action that she could have ma:’’ unmarried, may, independent husband, if or that she of her tained any which, authorizing action under a state facts her to brought. court its sue he could have 2998 present Section definitely case also observed declares shall be purposes married to the extent
899 development of Concerning history and deemed a sole. femme wife, the court governing the law the relations of husband right sue husband’s ease observed while the right to include the right, held to common-law had never been right sue his husband to personal sue his wife for a tort. court being common personal nonexistent at tort why, argued stronger in the absence there are reasons right of statute, has no such express it should be held that a wife against rights wife, Rogers, 265 Mo. of a said this court statutory, and, comprehensive e. purely S. l. “are effecting from emancipation as is our Married Woman’s Act right rights matrimonial far bonds so as her concerned, sue contract with others her husband is Sally, him l. c. (citing Rice, at law” & v. Mo. Stix Co. 128, 75 S. W. in an 398, involving husband) “and sue alone tort negligence through sustained of others given
.
authority express
there is
act
implied
no
or
him
to sue
for a
tort.”
Appellant urges
preceding
the decision
decisions of this court
Married Woman’s
the sections of the
held
gave
equity
Act
to the wife the
in law in
to sue
either
by any
language
one or to be
including
husband. The
one
application
decisions
not
issues
should
receive wider
than the
Sally,
Rice,
involved.
The cases cited
Stix & Co. v.
Mo.
are
398;
Chapman,
cal in both cases. insists it is inconceivable that the Gen- Assembly eral intended the Married Woman’s Act “to remove disability everything of Avife husband to sue each other disability else and retain the of husband and wife to sue each other conceding act, scope is Ave tort.” Without that such Rogers, supra, observe that this court decided the sitting and that successive General Assemblies since enact, of; legislation time have not fit to undo the effect seen decision that case. jurisdictions, presented
It is has true majority otbérwise ruled. But been of states in which the passed upon courts have this issue of the decisions been in have ruling in accord with our case. For the reasons stated W Cooley estimes, CC., is affirmed. concur. foregoing opinion by Fitzsimmons, G., PER CURIAM: The judges adopted as the of the court. All the concur. at the Relation and to the Use of William State of Missouri Jennings Stoecker, Relator, Sewer District of St. Louis County S. W. al. 63 Two, September Ralph, Nolan, & Rush Brown for relator.