Wilcox v. Henderson

14 Citing cases

  1. Burglass v. United States

    76 F. Supp. 904 (E.D. La. 1948)   Cited 3 times
    In Burglass v. United States, 76 F. Supp. 904 (E.D.La. 1948) the court, in deciding that trust income paid to a beneficiary husband constituted fruits of the husband's separate property and thus formed part of the community existing between him and his wife, stated that. the title or ownership of the property in trust... was vested in the heirs at the death of the father, subject only to the limited trust...

    "The fruits of the paraphernal effects of which the wife reserved to herself the enjoyment, are excepted from the rule contained in this article." Wilcox v. Henderson, 9 La. Ann. 347; Harrell v. Harrell, 12 La. Ann. 549; In re Jones 41 La. Ann. 620, 6 So. 180. The management of the community property or any other besides her "paraphernal effects" (mentioned in Art. 2407) by the wife is "conjointly with her husband"; whereas, the sole management by the husband of either the community property or the "effects which both husband and wife brought reciprocally in marriage * * *" causes such fruits to fall into the community.

  2. DeFillipo v. Testa

    117 N.H. 704 (N.H. 1977)   Cited 2 times

    The master recommended a verdict for plaintiffs which was approved by the presiding justice. See Wilcox v. Henderson, 90 R.I. 472, 479, 159 A.2d 797, 801 (1960). Defendants filed a motion to set aside the verdict based in part on a finding by the master that the plaintiffs were not listed as creditors in the bankruptcy proceedings of MBC, Inc. There is no dispute that the master erred in this respect.

  3. Petitpas v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co.

    103 R.I. 479 (R.I. 1968)   Cited 9 times
    In Petitpas v. Merchants Mutual Insurance Co., 103 R.I. 479, 483, 238 A.2d 750, 753, we made it clear that improper argument "* * * is not available as a ground upon which to base a motion for a new trial."

    That instruction was not objected to and thereafter, as the law of the case, it was binding equally upon the judge in passing upon the motion for a new trial as it was upon the jury in resolving the factual issues. Wilcox v. Henderson, 90 R.I. 472, 159 A.2d 797. It may well be that the trial justice, if free to draw his own inferences from the evidence, would have been inclined to reach a conclusion opposite to that arrived at by the jury.

  4. Gramolini v. Marzalkowski

    228 A.2d 537 (R.I. 1967)   Cited 9 times

    He does not weigh the evidence or pass upon the credibility of the witnesses. If there is any evidence whatsoever to support such a party, the trial justice is required under our decisions to submit the case to the jury. Morrarty v. Reali, 100 R.I. 689, 219 A.2d 404; Gaudette v. Carter, 100 R.I. 259, 214 A.2d 197; Wilcox v. Henderson, 90 R.I. 472. The action of the superior court in denying the instant motion for a directed verdict was amply justified. The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

  5. Merchants Nat. Bank of Mobile v. Cotnam

    250 Ala. 316 (Ala. 1948)   Cited 20 times

    Boswell v. Thompson, 160 Ala. 306, 49 So. 73; Furhman v. Huntsville, 54 Ala. 263; Lay v. Fuller, 178 Ala. 375, 59 So. 609; Godden Seed Co. v. Smith, 185 Ala. 296, 64 So. 100; Bessemer L. I. Co. v. Jenkins, 111 Ala. 135, 18 So. 565, 56 Am.St.Rep. 26; Smith v. Wolf, 160 Ala. 644, 49 So. 395. Charges requested by defendant exact too high a degree of proof of plaintiff. Wilcox v. Henderson, 64 Ala. 535; Wilkinson v. Searcy, 76 Ala. 176; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Moog, 81 Ala. 335, 1 So. 108; Battles v. Tallman, 96 Ala. 403, 11 So. 247; Scott v. L. N. R. Co., 217 Ala. 255, 115 So. 171. Credibility of plaintiff's witnesses was for the jury. So. Ind. Inst. v. Hellier, 142 Ala. 686, 39 So. 163; So. R. Co. v. Collins, 179 Ala. 335, 60 So. 95; Shipp v. Shelton, 193 Ala. 658, 69 So. 102; Crabtree v. Street, 201 Ala. 630, 79 So. 192; Metropolitan L. I. Co. v. James, 228 Ala. 383, 153 So. 759.

  6. Succession of Brunies

    25 So. 2d 287 (La. 1946)   Cited 11 times

    The cases analyzed and discussed in the Ratcliff case are the following: In Wilcox v. Henderson, 9 La.Ann. 347, we held that the fruits of the wife's paraphernal property, under the administration of the husband, belonged to the community, but that the community must bear the charges of the cultivation thereof as well as other incidental expenses. The decedent in Succession of Boyer, 36 La.Ann. 506, had, prior to a second marriage, bought a house which was used as a residence during said second marriage.

  7. Succession of Ratcliff

    24 So. 2d 456 (La. 1946)   Cited 16 times

    The community, according to Revised Civil Code Article 2402, consists of the profits of all the effects of which the husband has the administration and enjoyment. In Wilcox v. Henderson, 9 La.Ann. 347, this court held that the fruits of the wife's paraphernal property, under the administration of the husband, belonged to the community, but it must bear the charges of cultivation as well as other incidental expenses. Succession of Boyer, 36 La.Ann. 506, is authority for the proposition that where the community has been credited with all of the revenues from the husband's separate property it is chargeable with the taxes, repairs and insurance on the separate property thus enjoyed.

  8. Nashville Broom Supply Co. v. Alabama Broom

    211 Ala. 192 (Ala. 1924)   Cited 12 times

    In the absence of a definite description or a sample, if there was a warranty, it was not expressed, and only implied. Gachet v. Warren, 72 Ala. 293; McCaa v. Elam Drug Co., 114 Ala. 84, 21 So. 479, 62 Am. St. Rep. 88; Wilcox v. Henderson, 64 Ala. 542; Farrow v. Andrews, 69 Ala. 96; In re Bailey Gro. Co., 201 Ala. 79, 77 So. 373. Appellee having used the broom corn cannot say it did accept it. Ala. B. M. Co. v. Nashville B. S. Co., 208 Ala. 223, 94 So. 83; 35 Cyc. 224. Charge 10 should have been given. Moore v. Barber Asph. Co., 118 Ala. 563, 23 So. 798. David A. Grayson, of Huntsville, for appellee.

  9. Washam v. Beaty

    99 So. 163 (Ala. 1924)   Cited 14 times
    In Washam v. Beaty, 210 Ala. 635, 99 So. 163, the court on rehearing approved the proposition (involving the burden to overcome the presumption of sanity) that "clear" is highly exacting as to proof of facts "and always means more than reasonably satisfying."

    "Clear" has a meaning in excess of that requirement, as this court has repeatedly declared. In Wilcox v. Henderson, 64 Ala. 535, 543, it was said that an instruction that the jury must be "clearly convinced" lays down "too exacting a rule." In Wilkinson v. Searcy, 76 Ala. 176, 182, it was said that "clearly and satisfactorily convinced" required too high a measure of proof.

  10. Cornett v. Brooks

    90 So. 787 (Ala. 1921)   Cited 9 times

    Charge 2, requested by defendant, was refused without error. It exacted too high a degree of proof. It was only required of plaintiff that he prove his title to the reasonable satisfaction of the jury. Morrow v. Campbell, 118 Ala. 330, 24 So. 852; Wilcox v. Henderson, 64 Ala. 535. The rule of Bailey v. Litten, 52 Ala. 282 (affirmed in later cases — Johnson v. Rogers, 112 Ala. 576, 20 So. 929), applies where the jurisdiction of the court of equity is invoked for the rescission or cancellation of contracts which have been reduced to writing. Charge 4, refused to defendant, was amply covered by charge 3 given for defendant, and in better form, for, according to plaintiff's testimony, it was his right — perhaps his duty — under the contract, to have the new fly wheel adjusted.