Case Name: Catharine Dixon's Adm'r v. Joseph M. Dixon et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1849-12
Citations: 18 Ohio 113
Docket Number: 
Parties: Catharine Dixon’s Adm’r v. Joseph M. Dixon et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 18
Pages: 113–116

Head Matter:
Catharine Dixon’s Adm’r v. Joseph M. Dixon et al.
Choses in action belonging to the wife at the time of the marriage, and not reduced to possession by the husband during coverture, will go to her representatives, charged with her debts dum sola.
Such choses in action may be reduced to possession by means of a judgment obtained during coverture, by the husband alone ; or by an assignment by the husband during coverture, for a valuable consideration ; or by taking new securities in the name of the husband alone.
Promissory notes payable to the wife or be.arer, dum sola, and remaining in possession of the husband during coverture, without such suit or assignment, will, at the death of the wife, fall to her heirs.
This is a bill in chancery, reserved in Ashland county.
The bill was filed by the complainant, as administrator on the estate of Catharine Dixon, who died intestate, on the 2d day of November, 1845, for the purpose of determining the rights of Joseph M. Dixon, the surviving husband of said Catharine, and his assigns, to sundry choses in action which belonged to said Catharine before marriage.
The answer admits that such choses in action did exist, at the time of the marriage, but insists that they were all effectually reduced to possession during coverture.
In the court of common pleas the case was referred to a •master, who reported the following facts:
First, That on the 16th December, 1845, and after the death of his wife, said Dixon recovered judgment for about $80, on a promissory note given by George Craton and Peter Willoz to •said Catharine, or bearer.
Second, That after the death of said Catharine, the said Dixon assigned to Hanness & Hanna a promissory note for $100.84, which was payable to said Catharine, or bearer, by C. Mykrantz and G. McCartney. Said Hanness & Hanna subsequently transferred said note to J. McBride.
Third, That a judgment was obtained by said Dixon, in his ■own name, during coverture, on two promissory notes given by said Mykrantz & McCartney, and payable to said Catharine, or hearer, one for $74.90, and the other for $95.43.
Fourth, That the said Dixon had then in his possession two notes which belonged to said Catharine before the marriage, given by Geo. McCartney and Abraham Huffman, and made payable to John Allison, administrator on the estate of Michael D. Rowe, one for $75 and the other for $30. On this last note there was but six dollars remaining due at the decease of Mrs. Dixon.
Fifth, That the said Dixon held a note against Michael Rowe for $229, which was given during coverture for the dower of said Catharine in the estate of her former husband, Michael D. Rowe, deceased. Said note was taken in his own name.
The master reported that the claims arising upon the 1st, 2d and 4th items,'belonged to the complainant as administrator, and the residue to the defendant Dixon.
Both parties excepted to the master’s report. The exceptions taken by defendants were sustained by the court below, and the bill was dismissed.
J. W. Smith, for complainant,
cited the following authori ties:
Carry v. Fulkerson’s Ex’r, 14 Ohio Rep. 106; 1 Chit. Pl. 29-31; 13 Wend. Rep. 271; 3 Daniel’s Ch. Pr. 72; 2 Kent’s Com. 135-7; Bailey on Bills 159; 15 Ohio Rep. 247; 2 Vesey Sen’r 675; 5 Johns. Ch. Rep. 196; 6 Johns. Ch. Rep. 178; 9 Vesey 174; 10 Vesey 578.
Grates McGombs, for defendants,
cited these authorities:
Wright’s Rep. 348; 2 Kent’s Com. 137, 142; Reeve’s Dom. Rel. 23; 1 Vernon’s Rep. 396; 12 Ohio Rep. 272; 3 Phil. Ev., by Cow. & Hill, 803.

Opinion:
Spalding, J.
The law is settled in Ohio that choses in action, which belonged to the wife at the time of the marriage, if not reduced to possession by the husband during coverture, will survive to the wife. This rule will embrace notes payable to third persons for her use, as well as those payable to herself.
It may be a work of more difficulty to define what the law will consider a reducing to possession.
Upon mature consideration, this court declares the law to be, that the chose in action of the wife may be reduced to possession by the husband during coverture,
First, by.obtaining payment.
Second, by recovering judgment in his own name.
Third, by assigning to third persons, in good faith and foi valuable consideration.
Fourth, by substituting other securities, taken in his own name.
No action of the husband, after the death of the wife, will be effectual to divest her heirs of their rights; but all promis sory notes, payable to her or her order, or to bearer, which remain in statu quo during the continuance of the coverture, however much they may be in the keeping and possession of the husband, will go to her legal representatives, charged with hei debts dum sola.
Notes taken by the husband, in his own name, for lands oi the wife, sold during coverture, will of course belong to him.
By applying these rules to the case before the court, it will be seen that the master's report is confirmed in all particulars save one. The assignment after the death of the wife is invalid, and the amount of that note must be recovered from the assignees, if the defendant Dixon be unable to pay it.
The cause will be remanded, that a decree may be taken by complainant upon these principles.