Robert Marye & Co. v. Root

Citations

• 27 Fla. 453

Syllabus

<p>.1. A bill iu equity alleges: That in the dwelling’ houses standihg on land, (which, as represented by another part of the bill, is the separate statutory property of tlie wife), or in one of such houses, are much furniture and other household goods of a costly kind, amounting in value with other personal property which the husband lias, to more than the sum of the constitutional exemption. That defendants, husband and wife, claim that this property is the property of the wife, and as such exempt from sale to satisfy complainants’ judgment against the husband and other judgments against him, which complainants deny to be a fact: Held, on demurrer, not to show ground for equitable relief against the personalty as property of tlie husband.</p> <p>2. A bill in equity alleges: That the dwelling houses, store house, ■warehouse, wharf, pier and all other structures and improvements on land, shown by the bill elsewhere to be the ssparate statutory property of the wife, were constructed and paid for in so far as they have been paid for by the husband with his own money: Held, on demurrer, not to show that the improvements were constructed or paid for, even in part, with the husband’s money.</p> <p>3. The rent, income or profits of a wife's separate statutory real property cannot be subjected by creditors of her husband to the payment of her husband's debts. Dollner, Potter & Co. vs. Snow, 10 Fla., 80; Fairchild vs. Knight, 18 Fla., 7”0; McGill vs. McGill, 19 Fla., 841; Harwood vs. Root, 30 Fla., 940, reviewed and held not inconsistent with this conclusion.</p>