The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-08-21
IS A WOMAN EVER
HEAD OF A FAM|LY2
Judge PurneII Says She is
Sometimes,
If SHE SUPPORTS IT
SUPPORTS IT
A Very Peculiar Case Decided by the
Circuit Court of Appeals.
JUDGE PURNELL WRITES THE DECISION
When the Husband is a Mere Dependent, and
Pours His Little Earning Into His Wife's
Lap, and Acknowledges She Rules
She is the Head,
She is the Head.

The United States Circuit court of
Appeals at Richmond recently
handed down a decision that is of
keen interest not only to the bar, but
to the laity as well, on account of the
absolute uniqueness of the case.
The case was in the bankruptcy court
and the question at issue was: is a
married woman living with her hus-
band ever the head of the family"
Judge Purnell decides that she may be.
The question arose from the ambig-
uous wording of the Virginia home
stead. law, but is one that could not
occur i'll North Carolina. The opin-
ion was written by Judge Purnell, of
this city.
The statement of the case is sub
stantially as follows:
Mrs. Mariana H. Richardson. mar
ried woman, conducted a merchandise
business at Plum Point, under the
style of j. l.. Richardson, agent j. L.
Richardson, the agent, was her hus-
band. She was the postmistress at
Plum Point, and the pOstoffice was
kept in the store, and managed by
the husband, who conducted the bust
ness.
About the 10th of May, 1898, Mrs
Marian III. Richardson made an as
signment for the benefit of her cred
itors and closed the business
The husbands chief income was
from carrying passengers back and
forth from Plum Point to the station,
and money made from this and other
sources was used to aid his wife in
supporting his family.
The goods conveyed in the assign
ment did not pay off the creditors of
j. u. Richardson, agent, and on the
5th day of January, 1899, Mrs Marian
Fl. Richardson filed her petition pray
ing to be adjudged a bankrupt At
forwards J. L, Richardson filed a Pc
tition in bankruptcy and claimed all
his property under what is known in
Virginia as the "Poor Debtors Law,
which exempts certain specific chat
tells to "a householder or head of a
family" Marian II. Richardson
filed an amended petition and claim
ed her real property under what is
known as the Homestead Exemption
Law which eXempts to a house
hold" or head of a family $4,000 free
from levy garnishment or distress.
The title of the real estate is in the
wife, Marian III. Richardson and the
husband testified the wife managed
the business of the family, had always
been regarded as the head of the fam
lily since their marriage and he was
an assistant or helpmate in getting
along, that she was postmistress, took
boarders, sewed. and was dress
maker. The petitioner on examina-
ton testified she was a householder
and head of family, she supported
the family by the income from the
store conducted by her husband as
her agent. and other sources.
The only question presented and ar
CUES is whether being a mar
ried woman living with her
husband petitioner is en-
titled to the homestead exemption as
"a householder or head of a family
as provided by the constitution and
laws of Virginia. No question of pro
cedure is involved, as to whether the
bankrupt had properly set up claim
for the exemption.
In his opinion Judge Purnel says:
1.-THE husband is generally and for
many purposes the head of the fam
lily. He owes it as a moral duty to
support his wife and children--a fail
ure to do so is in many Jurisdictions
made crime. The records Of the
courts show husbands do not always
discharge this and many other moral
duties incumbent upon them. When
he fails in these moral and legal OBJ
legations, when an intelligent, active,
Industrious, frugal woman finds she
has married a man who instead of
coming up to the standard of a hus
band, is mere dependent, who ac-
knowledges that he is only helpmate
to his wife, obeys her instructions,
pours his little earnings into her lap.
acknowledges her to be and to have
always been the head of the family
and leaves to her its support it would
be contradictory Of fact and an alb
surd construction of law to say he
and not she is the head of the family
and deny to her the benefits intended
for the family out of her separate es-
tate, property she has accumulated,
because the title is in her.