Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-04-17

inflicted was TO tbewife. Can il be doubted
that. &c she had lived, she could have
maintained the action7 The proposition
is too plain for argument. The courts are
alike open TO the wife as well As 10 the
husband. When their rights are not an
tagonistic they must join, bat where they
are opposed, the Law gives the remedy
Ii the wife, in her life time, jointly with
her husband commenced an action for
wrongs and injuries done her; by section
2s46 Of the Code, If she die the suit would
not abate. The provisions Of that section
are, that no civil action, whether founded
on wrongs or contracts, except wrongs
affecting the character, shall abate by the
death of either party. In cases where the
husband and wife sue for wrongs or injH-
ries inflicted on the wife, and she die, the
action must be revived 10 the name of the
personal representative upon that being
done the husband is no longer necessary
party, and the suit is prosecuted in the
name of her personal representative; SO
Maine Reports, 81. In that case the court
says "The husband is bin the enabling
party, not the actor. He is only required
TO join by reason of his relation. He may
be iikened TO guardian in whose name
the action is brought for the ward. The
husband being q mere nominal party,
side supporter, having no right to
be in the writ except as the aid and
supporter Of his wife, and as one with
her. She dies. He may, therefore, with
draw and allow her administrator
TO come in.h The wife then having the
right of action to sue for wrongs and in
juries inflicted, the husband heing only the
supporter or means by which the right Is
enforced, she is a person within the mean
ing of section 229l ofthe Code.
TO hold that the Legislature did not in
tend TO embrace the wife in this section,
would De giving narrow and close con-
struction not contemplated by the trainers
Of the law. Can it be held consistently
with our views Of right, that those we most
love and cherish who give life and light
to our homes who nurtured us in our in
fancy who lean upon us in our manhood,
and look to us for protection, and who are
infinitely our superiors in all the higher af-
fections Of our nature, are excluded from the
provisions of a law, the object and purpose
Of which was TO protect human life? It i
would be libel on the Legislature, and
reneetlon upon the CIVILIZATION OF the State.
We are of opinion that the wife is embraced
in the provisions of section 229I 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 representative.
We are sustained in this view of section
229l 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 judicial construc.
ton. q Barber 245; % Barber, Al; Is
New York 432; "a New York, al; IS
Illinois, 1858; 7e0hio, 2S5. See also 5
Watson Cd. af
The Circuit Judge erred in sustaining
the demurrer to the declaration. The
judgment will therefore be reversed and
the cause remanded. .a1
SHACKLFFORD. Judpe