Story Case

Doris Miller and Richard Robins were married in 1910. Before their marriage Richard asked her if she owed any obligation of any kind, and she answered in the negative. She did, however, owe $200 on an account with a local retail store, which she hoped to pay secretly after the marriage. A year after the marriage Doris died, and the account had never been paid. The department store then attempted to hold Robins liable for the account on the ground that the husband assumes the liabilities of his wife when they become married. Robins defended on the ground that he was ignorant of this claim at the time of marriage, and that, in any case, he would not be liable after the death of his wife. Is this a good defense?

Ruling Court Case. Cole Vs. Shurtleff, Volume 41 Vermont Reports, Page 311; Volume 98 American Decisions, Page 587

The defendant married a daughter of the plaintiff. Sometime prior to the marriage the daughter bought clothing which her father paid for and which she agreed to repay him for later. After the death of the daughter the plaintiff demanded that the defendant pay for the goods which the daughter had purchased. The defendant refused to do so, and this action was brought to recover for the same.

Decision: "As to this antenuptial debt of the wife, the plaintiff, as a legal consequence of his marriage, became liable to pay it; but this was a joint liability with the wife. She could not have been sued alone, neither could the husband. It is an elementary rule that when a feme sole, who has contracted debt, marries, the husband and wife must, in general, be jointly sued in an action to recover thereon, even though the husband has expressly promised to pay it.

"This liability of the husband, arising and existing as a consequence of the marriage and which can be enforced only in a joint action against both, is of a temporary or qualified nature. It terminates on the death of the wife unless enforced during coverture by the recovery of a judgment against the husband."

It was therefore held that the plaintiff could recover nothing in this action.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

Upon the marriage of a man and woman, the man becomes obligated to pay all the debts which the wife owed previous to the marriage. This is sometimes said to be based upon the fiction that husband and wife are one. By some courts it is said to be based upon the fact that the husband acquires all the personal property of the wife upon their marriage. It seems, however, that the husband is liable for his wife's debts, whether or not he knows of their existence when he marries the woman, and whether or not he receives from her any personal property, with which to pay her debts. It is to be noted, however, that this is not an absolute liability on the husband. It becomes a joint liability of husband and wife and unless judgment is procured against the husband during their joint lives, neither he nor his estate is liable for the debt.

In the Story Case, Robins is not liable to pay the department store account. His first defense is not good because the husband's ignorance of the claim is immaterial, but his second defense is good. He is not liable alone, but only jointly with his wife.

The rule of law stated here is not changed by statutes giving a married woman her separate estates. A statute giving her these rights does not, in itself, free the husband of her obligation. To accomplish the latter requires explicit statutory enactment.