Court Opinion

ID: 9808402
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:37:15.450134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:07.314836
License: Public Domain

Clare, O. J.,
concurring in result: The defendant has lost her right of appeal by no fault of her own, but in consequence of the illness of the Judge, who was taken ill and *627could not proceed to judgment. The succeeding Judge could neither impose judgment nor “settle a case on appeal,” as he had no personal knowledge of the incidents'of the trial. The only remedy is in ordering a new trial. Indeed, the Judge might well have instructed the jury that there was no evidence that the defendant voluntarily abandoned the work.
This renders it obiter to discuss the merits of the case. It is true that Syme v. Riddle, 88 N. C., 463, and some cases following it, have held (not without question, however) that a husband is entitled to the earnings of his wife; but in my judgment that decision is opposed to the entire thought and civilization of the day and ought not to be held now as authority. It was based upon the preconceived opinion of Judges who rested their decision upon the barbarous doctrine of the common law under which a woman upon marriage became non sui juris} and her husband took her property and her earnings as fully as a master became entitled to the property and earnings of his slave. The decision in Syme v. Biddle is directly opposed to the language of the Constitution, Art. X, see. 6 : “The real and personal property of any female in this State acquired before’marriage, and all property, real and personal, to which she may after marriage become in any manner entitled, shall be and remain the sole and separate estate and property of such female.” This guarantees her control of her property of all kinds, whether acquired before or after marriage, and it can malee no difference whether it is income from her property or earnings from her labor. Of the two, the wife’s right to control the latter is stronger of natural right. There can be no force in the argument used in Syme v. Biddle,, that' her earnings are needed for the support of the family, and therefore her husband should have them, for there is no guarantee that he will so apply them; indeed, there is much less certainty thereof than that the wife and mother will use her earnings for the benefit of her children. Besides, *628by the same token, as it devolves especially upon tbe husband to support bis wife and children, there is a stronger reason that he shall not dispose of his earnings without his wife’s concurrence than that she shall be constrained not to receive and use her own earnings without the husband’s consent. By unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals in England in the Clitheroe case (Reg. v. Jackson), Q. B. D. (1891), 697, it was held that the Jmsband could not enforce the unwilling companionship of the wife. The law now recognizes the equality of rights of both parties to the marital relation, and ho longer asserts the inferiority or subjection of the woman. But argument ought to'be out of the question in view of the language of the Constitution. In Syme v. Riddle, 88 N. C., 463, and that class of cases, the Court overlooked the fact that there is no statute with us giving the wife’s earnings to the husband, and that the Constitution had entirely abrogated the common-law doctrine as to the subjective status of the wife.
In England the Court of Chancery by judicial legislation, pure and simple, originated the status of the wife’s separate property, and created the doctrine, by judicial enactment, of “charging in equity,” which has since been completely repealed and effaced by the more progressive action of Parliament. In 1870 Parliament enacted that a married woman was entitled to her earnings, for the above action of the courts had applied only to the wealthier classes, to married women owning property, which the Court of Chancery could reach and control. In 1882 Parliament enacted in substance the provision of the North Carolina Constitution, that a married woman’s property of every description, whether acquired before or after marriage, shall be in her sole control, and went further by dispensing with any necessity of the husband’s assent to conveyances of the wife’s property (which is the only restriction upon her freedom of control required by our Constitution), and gave the wife absolute freedom of contract. *629Tbe Judges of England being, as sometimes is the case with courts, unable or unwilling to recognize the completeness of a change made by an enactment of the law-making power, held, notwithstanding the broad terms of the Act of 1882, that if a married woman possessed no property at the time she made a contract, her subsequently acquired property could not be subjected to execution. In 1893 Parliament swept away this refinement, and ever since in England a married woman’s property rights and her right to contract are the same as her husband’s. The same is true of New York (from whose Constitution the married woman’s clause in our Constitution is copied), and in most other States. 1 A. and E. Enc. (2 Ed.), 522. The above summary of the changes in the English law is taken from the Century of Law Eeform, 358-310; Dicey’s Law and Opinion in England 3Y3, 395. Professor Dicey in summing up these statutory changes says that they made simple and plain and more complete the changes which the Court of Chancery by ingenious and successive tentative decisions had made in favor of the daughters of the wealthy, and that Parliament applied the benefits of “the change to the daughters of the poor as well as in favor of the daughters of the rich,” which the courts had done.
It would seem, indeed, that the wife here had a right to her earnings; the Constitution so says, and there is certainly no statute upon our books to the contrary. As the husband went home every Saturday and spent Sunday with his wife, and there is no evidence that he raised any objection to her working the crop, the jury would doubtless have found upon proper instructions that the defendant’s contract for work was to aid in the support of herself and family. They could hardly have supposed in reason that it was for any other purpose. This being so, she had a legal right to agree that the product of her labor should go to the payment for provisions furnished her, being necessaries for herself and family. The Consti*630tution requires tbe assent of the husband only to “conveyances” by her, not to sales of personalty, as her crop when gathered. Vann v. Edwards, 135 N. C., 661. As Professor Dicey said of the Parliament of England we may say of our Constitution, that it was not intended that the rich woman should control the income (as well as principal) of her property, while leaving the petty earnings of the poor woman, from her needle or otherwise, to the control of the husband, to be squandered in drink, or otherwise at his will. ' The emancipation was to all women alike, and it matters not in what manner the income is derived, whether from earnings or property, and whether they become entitled thereto before or after marriage.
In Christopher v. Norvell, 201 U. S., 216, it is held that a married woman owning stock in a National bank is subject to a personal judgment, like every one else, for an assessment on the stock, notwithstanding that under the laws of the State a married woman cannot enter into a contract, because since the laws of the State do not incapacitate her to own such stock, she assumes the liability incident to its ownership. Eor the same reason, since the laws of this State do not incapacitate a married woman to work a crop as tenant or on shares, she is liable to the criminal law, to the same extent as any one else, for receiving advances on such crop and after-wards abandoning the work. Her liability for such conduct arises under the statute, and not by virtue of her contract. Christopher v. Norvell, supra.
There has been as to married women some approximation to the Constitution in late legislation. Laws 1901, ch. 611, now Rev., 2016; Finger v. Hunter, 130 N. C., 529; and this Court has often recommended more effective legislation to conform to the Constitution, Bank v. Howell, 118 N. C., 273; Ball v. Paquin, 140 N. C., 96. In view of the present great confusion in the law as shown in the table in Vann v. Edwards, 128 N. C., 431-435, such legislation is badly needed.
*631There is a very important question, wbicb, however, like the above, it is not necessary to decide, as there is really no case before us, since a new trial has been ordered on the ground that there is no valid judgment and hence no appeal presenting the merits. It is well, however, to note the question, that it may not be thought that it was tacitly approved. This indictment is under Revisal, 3367, which provides that if any tenant or cropper shall procure advances from a landlord to enable him to make a crop on the land rented to him, and then wilfully abandon the same without good cause and without paying for such advances, he is guilty of a misdemeanor and liable to fine and imprisonment. This and the almost identical provisions of section 3366 apply only to certain counties named therein. As such conduct is merely a breach of contract, and there is no crime if the advances are repaid, a grave question arises whether 'these sections are not in violation of the provision in the State Constitution (Art. I, sec. 16) forbidding “imprisonment for debt, except in cases of fraud,” and also whether they do not conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution ■ of the United States 'against “involuntary servitude, except as a punishment whereof the party shall have been (i. e., previously) duly convicted.” If the service is enforced unless the debt is paid, is it not “involuntary servitude ?” Clyatt v. U. S., 197 U. S., 207; Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S., 275.
This statute is doubtless a very convenient one for landlords in the counties named. But if upon full consideration it shall prove to be unenforcible it may result in great loss to them. While in most cases its operation may prove a convenience to the tenant in aiding him to get supplies, and not a hardship, it is capable of great abuse. It is at least wise to call attention to the matter, that it may not be supposed that the Court has passed upon the enforcibility of these sections.