Court Opinion

ID: 9808377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:36:23.347357+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:00.149617
License: Public Domain

Cr-ARK, C. J.,
concurring in result: When the Constitution of 1868, Art. X, sec. 6, in accordance with the sentiment oí a more enlightened age, abolished the common-law system under which the property of a married woman became the property of her husband on marriage, it provided not only that all property which she had at the time of the marriage should “be and remain the sole and separate estate and property of such female,” but, also, that she should retain all property “to which she may after marriage become in any manner entitled.” Thus, in the fullest and most explicit manner, the earnings of the wife after marriage were guaranteed to her by the Constitution.
It is true that now, as always, the husband is entitled to the services and society of his wife, and, in l'ke manner, she is entitled to the services and society of her husband; but this dees not give the wife ownership of the earnings of her husband, nor, since the Constitution of 1868, has it given the ownership of her earnings to the husband. It was doubtless in sheer inadvertence to this distinction that in Syme v. Riddle, 88 N. C., 463, this Court held that though the Constitution was as above quoted, the wife could not have her own earnings because no statute of the Legislature had been passed to that effect.
Tn Price v. Electric Co. the maioritv of the Court belrl. in deference to Syme v. Riddle, that, not only the earnings of the wife from taking in washing, but that damages for her loss of ber leg and nhvsicnl and mental anguish and loss of time belonged to ber husband, llionob seating ihnt the contrary was held in other Nates. The General Wp.ml Iv. at its session shortly thereafter, enacted eh. 13, Laws 1913, wlreb provides *473as follows: “Tbe earnings of a married woman by virtue of any contract for ber personal service, and any damages for personal injuries, or other torts sustained by her, can be recovered by her suing alone, and Such earnings or recovery shall be her sole and separate property as fully as if she had remained unmarried
It will be thus seen that this matter has been finally settled in accordance with the express terms of the Constitution, which gave to the wife all that she, "in any manner, might acquire after marriage.” The right of a wife to her earnings does not depend upon the consent of the husband, as was held in Syme v. Riddle, but upon the Constitution and the statute which vests her earnings in her as fully as the husband has a right to his. As already said, this no more interferes with the liability of each and the duty of each to the other than does the constitutional provision that the wife owns her property free from any control by the husband.