The Bolivar bulletin. [volume] (Bolivar, Hardeman County, Tenn.) 1865-1888, 1868-04-25

her. The husband is the means BY which
that right is enforced. As In the case Of
Infants who must sue ey their guardian or
next friend, and so IN all the relations of
life, where persons are under disabilities
The injury inflicted was TO the WIFE Can 1t
be doubted that, if she had lived she could
have main tanned the action2 The PROPOSE
ton Is too plain for argument. The courts
are alike open to the wife as well as to the
husband. When their rights are not an
tagonistic they must join, but 8hera they
are opposed, the law gives the remedy. If
the wife IN her life time Jointly with her
husband commenced an action for wrongs
and injuries done her; by section 2, S46 Of
the Code, if she die the suitwOuld not abate.
The provisions of that section are, that no
civil action, whether founded on wrongs or
contracts, except wrongs affecting the char
acter, shall abate by the death of either
party In cases where the husband and
wife sue for wrongs or injuries inflicted on
the wife, and she die, the action must be re-
vived In the name of the personal represent
tative; upon that being done the husband is
no longer a necessary party. and the suit IS
! prosecuted IN the name OF her, personal rep
Teseutative SO Maine Reports, 81. In that.
| case the court says, !" Tho husband IS but
the. enabling party, not the actor. he is
! only required to join by reason. of his rela-
itiOn. He may be likened to guardian in
whose name the action is brought for the
ward. The husband being mere nominal
j party a side supporter, having no right to
be IN the writ except as the aid and sup
porter his wife, andas one with her. She
4 dies He may therefore, withdraw and al
| low her administrator to come IN. The
wife then having the right Of action to sue
for wrongs. and injuries, inflicted, the bus
band being only the supporter or means by
which the right is enforced she Is a person
4 within the meaning of section 2, 29l Of the
Code.
i 10 hold that the Legislature did not intend
to. embrace the wife In this section, would
be giving a narrow and close construction
not contemplated by the trainers of the law.
Can it be held consistently with our views
Of right, that those we most love and cher
! ish who give life and light to our homes
who nurtured US in our infancy; who lean
upon rs IN our manhood, and look to US for
protection, and who are infinitely our supe-
riors in all the higher affections of our ma
ture, are excluded from the provisions of a
law, the object and purpose of which was to
Fprotect human life? 1t would be a libel on
She legislatures and reflection upon the
civilization of the State. We are of Opin-
ION that the wife is embraced in the provis-
ions Of section 2, 29l of the Code; that she
would, if she had lived have had the right
of action Jointly with her husband for the
wrong or injury done her, and having died,
that the right passed to her personal repre-
sentative.
We are sustained in this view of section
1921 of the Code, by the decisions of the
courts of New York, Illinois and Ohio,
where acts of similar import have been
passed, and received a judicial construction.
q Barber 245; % Barber, Al Is New York
1872; 81 New York, All Is Illinois, 358;
Ohio, 285. See also Watson Cd.
The Circuit Judge erred in sustaining the
demurrer to the declaration. The judg
ment will therefore be reversed and the
cause remanded. SHACKLEFoRD, Judge