Nichols v. Dunphy
California Supreme Court
Nichols v. Dunphy, 53 Cal. 654 (Cal. 1879)
Nichols v. Dunphy
Opinion of the Court
There is no pretense that the appellant was personally present at or in anywise personally participated in the collision, to recover damages for which this action is brought.
As to whether the appellant, as being the husband of his co-defendant, could be held liable for the tort committed by her in his absence and without his command, is a question which does not arise upon the record, because the complaint does not allege that the defendants are husband and wife, but counts against them as actual tort-feasors, personally participating in the wrong complained of.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded. Remittitur forthwith.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- EDITH HALL NICHOLS, an Infant, by her Guardian, WANTON NICHOLS v. WM. DUNPHY and CABMEN DUNPHY
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Breading—Liability of Husband fob Tout of the Wife.—The question whether a husband can be held liable for a tort committed by his wife in his absence and without his command will not be considered in a case where the complaint counts against both as actual tort-feasors, personally participating in the wrong-doing.—[Bepobtee.]