Walker Lake bulletin. (Hawthorne, Nev.) 1883-1926, 1893-12-20
THE WAGES OF MARRIED wonru
Wives May Demand Payment for uo.,.
from Any Employers but Husb.ra-

wives May Demand Payment far W.
from Any Employers but Husbanas
A decision of much importance to mo-
ried women has recently been rendaroa
by the court of appeals of this state IL
the case of Herwig Blaechinska againS+
the Howard Mission and Home for Iittla
Wanderers.
The plaintiff, married woman. snaa
the defendant, a charitable corporation
to recover damages for injuries which
she sustained y falling over a coal hola
IN the sidewalk which the servants of
lhe defendant had failed to guard pron.
trly. Upon the trial she recovered
verdict of $780, which was affirmed nv
the general term of the supreme court in
this city. The case was taken to the
court of appeals and was there argued
before the second division of that fri.
bunal The only error upon which tha
appellant asked for reversal of the
Judgment was the instruction of the trial
Judge to the jury that in estimating the
damages sustained by Mrs. Blaechinska
they might take into consideration tbe
loss of wages which she had sustained
by reason CT her inability to work in
consequence of the accident.
At the time she was injured she was
living with her husband, who was a
custom tailor, and was working for him
as q seamstress at IA salary of five and
six dollars a week. The general term
held that this money which the plaintiff
received from her husband for services
| 81 ba,. ho1Jcabo1I 1,,+ia, ,,.oz
own property, and that 1.-THE loss of the
salary could be given in evidence as an
element of damage, the same as if she
had been working for a stranger" The
appellant insisted that this view of the
law as it now exists in the state Of New
York was erroneous.
The opinion of the court of appeals is
written by Judge Irving G. Vann, of
Syracuse, and is concurred in by all the
members of the second division. He re-
views the legislation in this state re-
moving the disabilities of married wom-
EN-, which began with the enabling act
of 1860, giving a wife a separate estate
in whatever she may acquire by her
trade, business, labor, or services car
ried on OF performed on her sole and
separate account, and extending down
to the act of 1887, which authorizes a
married woman to convey lands directly
to her husband and accept conveyances
of land directly from him.
He shows that it has uniformly been
held, Notwithstanding the various
changes effected by the successive stat
utes relating to married women, that
husband still has the right to the serv-
ices of his wife so far as household work
is concerned, even if that household
work be of somewhat exceptional char
acter, and that even when she does out
door work upon her husbands farm, she
cannot recover any wages for such labor,
although she holds her husbands writ
ten promise to pay her for it. If she
works for third person. the rule is diff
ent, and under an act passed in 1884 her
earnings in that event would be her OWL
Finding the law to be well settled by
adjudication to the effect we have stat
ed, Judge Vann inquiries, inasmuch as
ga man cannot make a valid contract to
pay his wife for extraordinary services
rendered in his household or for work
ing on his farm, how can he make a
valid contract to pay her for helping
him make clothes in his business as "a
custom tailor" The learned judge
comes to the conclusion that there is no
basis for any distinction.
The effect of this decision may be
plainly stated The husband cannot
now compel his wife to do work for
him which does not fall within the def
milton and scope of household services
any more than he could at common law,
but if the wife consents to do any
other work she cannot compel her hus-
band to pay her for it. In other words,
"such services as she renders him,
whether within OF without the strict
line of her duty, belong to him, and if
he pays her for them it is a gift" On
the other hand, whatever she earns by
means Of labor performed under her own
independent contracts for persons other
than her husband is made by statute her
individual property.
The case is one of exceptional interest
as presenting a clear statement of the
rights of married women as they now
exist in this state with respect to COM
pensation for their services.-New York
| Sun