The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-02-07
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY V
 CROWDER


 CROWDER.
 Action by Husband for Damages for In-
 jury to Wife.-Appeal from the City
 Court of Birmingham.
 l. Husband and wife; right of husband at common law to recover for injuries to wife.-At common law the husband could que and recover damages for a wrong to the wife occasioning a loss of her com- panionship and services, and for all ex- penses incurred by him as a proximate result of such wrong.
 2. Same; Code. Sections 2521, 2S27: dam ages.-sections 2521 and 2h27 of the Code do not affect the reciprocal duties of hus- band and wife growing out of the mar riage state. within their domestic rela- tion and the husband has a marital right to the wife's companionship. and services to himself and the family. and for the loss of which he has a right of action in damages against one by whose wrong the loss was caused, and in such action he is entitled to recover all expenses paid or incurred by him on account of her inju- ries.
 8. Code Section 25n: effect of as to du- ties of wife in marital and domestic re- lations. Sections 2521 of the Code. making the wife's earnings her separate property. does not absolve her from the duties and
 
 in her marital and domestic relations. 4. Code, Section 2527 effect upon hus- band s right of action for injuries to wife. Section 2527 of the Code, providing that for all injuries to her person, the wife must sue alone does not deprive the hus- band of his right of action for loss to him proximately resulting from the in- juries to her.
 5. Action by husband for injuries to wife; damages; loss of salary while nurs- ing wife.-In ascertaining the amount of damages to which the husband may be entitled by reason of an injury inflicted on his wife the amount of salary lost by the husband while nursing his wife can not be taken into consideration, and evil 1ence as to time lost by plaintiff while nursing his wife is not admissible
 6. Negligence: pleading: certainty In an action against railroad company for damages to a passenger, a count in the complaint Is sufficiently definite and cer- tain in it's averments of negligence, which, after alleging the time and place of the injury and the duty owing by defendant to the injured passenger, alleges that de- fendant ''negligently failed to safely car ry said passenger as 1t was it's duty to do. and so negiigently and unskillfully conducted itself in that regard" that the injury complained of resulted.
 2. Freight trains; jerks and jars; com- mon knowledge,-It is common knowledge that jerks and jars ordinarily attend the handling and running of freight trains, to greater degree than passenger trains. 8. Passengers on freight trains; as- stunned risks.-A passenger on a freight train is charged with knowledge that in the handling and running thereof jerks and jars occur and to a greater degree than on passenger trains. and he assumes the risks of the ordinary and usual jerks and jars of such train.
 , 9. Judicial knowledge; charge to jury Matters of common knowledge are not questions for the determination of q jury, and 1t is improper for the court to submit them to the jury.
 10. Trial; objections: error without in. juKy.-Where an answer to a question Is favorable to the party objectng to the question. error in everything such objec. ton is without injury.
 Reversed and remanded.
 Opinion by Dowdell, J.