Case Name: Ellen Cody v. Henry P. Phelps
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1882-01-18
Citations: 47 Mich. 431
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ellen Cody v. Henry P. Phelps.
Judges: Campbell and Cooley, JJ. concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 47
Pages: 431–435

Head Matter:
Ellen Cody v. Henry P. Phelps.
Lease — Abandonment of family — Execution.
Where the assignee of an invalid lease has abandoned his family, and a new lease is given to his wife, running in his name but signed by the wife by attaching her mark to his name, he is not bound by her act and does not become a party to the lease; and if she and her minor children farm the land she is entitled to the crops and they cannot be taken upon an execution against the husband.
The wife is the head of the family when the husband abandons it.
Error to Yan Burén.
Submitted October 26, 1881.
Decided January 18, 1882.
Case. Plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
Hughes, O’Brien <& Smiley for plaintiff in error.
Ownership of a vcorg prima facie follows the title to the farm: Hill v. Chambers 30 Mich. 428; a wife must be regarded •as acting as her husband’s agent in respect to his land : People v. Horton 4 Mich. 67; if she has helped acquire it .she lias consented to the intermingling of her property with it so that she cannot claim it as against his creditors: Campbell v. Campbell 21 Mich. 438; Glover v. Alcott 11 Mich. 470; Tong v. Marvin 15 Mich. 71; the children’s services belong to the husband: Shute v. Door 5 Wend. 204; so do • the wife’s, during coverture: Seitz v. Mitchell 94 U. S. 580; so do their joint earnings during coverture: Bucher v. Ream 68 Penn. St. 426.
Armdble do Fitch for defendant in error.
A wife’s earnings are treated as her separate estate: 1 Bish. Married Women § 21: 2 id. § 420; Schouler Dom. Rel. 244, 295; a husband cannot be compelled to appropriate his wife’s earnings to the payment of his creditors: 1 Bish. Mar. Women §§ 212, 213: 2 id. §§ 418, 420, 427, 458, n. 2; a wife may carry on business in her own name: Tillman v. Shackleton 15 Mich. 447; and need not assume debts not incurred by her or on her account: Newcomb v. Andrews 41 Mich. 518; Emery v. Lord 26 Mich. 431; Willard v. Magoon 30 Mich. 273; Morrison v. Berry 42 Mich. 389.

Opinion:
Marston, J.
It is admitted that the lease from the executors, of the lands whereon the wheat in question was grown, was invalid and that Peter Cody, as assignee thereof, would have had no right to the possession of the premises thereunder as against the heirs or those claiming under them. The evidence tends to show quite strongly, and the jury must have so found, that Peter Cody abandoned his family. After that time the executor's lease was surrendered up and a new lease from the heirs taken. This lease upon the face thereof appeared to run to Peter Cody. The draftsman signed Peter Cody's name to the lease and Mrs. Cody, who could not write, made her mark thereto, or a mark as though executing it for her husband. The wheat was sown and harvested under this lease.
Under the facts shown in this case it does not appear that Mrs. Cody had any authority whatever to execute this lease for her husband Peter Cody. He was not bound by her act, and he could not have been held liable for the rent thereon. As he was not a party therefore to this lease, and did not put in any crop upon the lands or have any knowledge, even, thereof, we think it cannot be said that he was the owner of the crops grown thereunder. Mrs. Cody after his abandonment was in fact the head of the family, and if she and her minor children cultivated this land, she is entitled to the-crops grown thereon and could maintain an action therefor.
The judgment should be affirmed with costs.
Campbell and Cooley, JJ. concurred.