Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

27 Ill. App. 401

Van Ingen v. Brabrook

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided December 7, 1888

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1888-12-07

<p>Husband and Wife — Property—Common Law hi Other States — Presumption — Trespass—Alleged Wrongful Levy.</p> <p>1. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it will be presumed in the courts of this State that the common law prevails in the other States.</p> <p>2. Where a wife, who has lived with her husband in Massachusetts and Missouri, brings money to this State and invests it in business in her own name, it will be presumed, in the absence of contrary evidence, that the title to such money and the personal property of the wife vested in the husband. This court so holds, although the investment was made in the name of the wife, and although the goods have been sold and replaced many times, thereby largely increasing the fund.</p> <p>8. In the case presented, in the absence of such evidence, the judgment against the defendants as trespassers for an alleged wrongful levy of an execution against the husband on the property in question, can not be sustained.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently June 1891

2 state decisions

Relies on Hanchett v. Rice

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1888-12-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1Appellee was married to William F. Bra-brook in 1863. They resided in Massachusetts for a number of years immediately preceding the year 1880, when they removed to Kansas City, Missouri, where they made their residence until September, 1881. At that time they removed to, and have ever since resided in, Chicago, where appellee, assisted by her husband, has carried on the merchant tailoring business. Appellee owned real estate in Massachusetts, but converted it into money, which was invested in real estate in Kansas City while she was living there. Her husband having failed in the tailoring business in that city, she sold her real estate there, brought the money to Chicago, and soon after invested it, or the larger part of it, on her own account and in her own name, in the tailoring business in Chicago, which business was continued by her until the date of the alleged trespass hereinafter stated.

¶2Appellants having an unsatisfied judgment against William F. Brabrook, caused an execution thereon to be issued, and levies made by the sheriff of Cook county on the stock of goods in the store of appellee, supposing and charging that the goods were in reality the property of the execution debtor. This was a suit in trespass, brought by appellee against the execution creditors and said sheriff and one Westrow, for such alleged wrongful levies, judgment being rendered against appellants for $2,912 in the court below.

¶3It will be observed that the title of appellee must depend on the law of Massachusetts or Missouri, or possibly both. There being no proof of those laws, the presumption is that the common law prevailed in both States, by virtue of which the title to the wife’s money and personal property, other than dioses in action, vested in the' husband. This is the rule, though the money has been invested in goods in the wife’s name, the goods sold and replaced many times, and the fund largely increased in amount. We need only refer to the case of Hanchett v. Rice, 22 Ill. App. 442, where this question is carefully considered, and, for this court at least, settled as stated.

¶4On the evidence in this record, the court should have found the defendants not guilty, for the reason here given. There is no other error in the record, but for that set forth the judgment of the court below is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

¶5Reversed and remanded.

/27/illapp/401 · .json · Public domain