Hancett v. Rice

[Editor’s Note: The casebook Cases, Materials and Problems in Property (Richard H. Chused ed., 3rd ed. 2010) erroneously gives the title of this case as “Hancett v. Rice.” The correct title is “Hanchett v. Rice.”] Amelia Rice (the wife) (plaintiff) married Isaac Rice (the husband) in 1854. The wife received money as a wedding gift from her parents that she continually invested on her own, including by making land purchases in her own name, earning substantial returns. The wife and the husband moved to Illinois in 1859 or 1860. In 1861, Illinois passed the Married Woman’s Act of 1861 (the 1861 act), which eliminated a husband’s coverture rights in his wife’s property. The wife also worked from 1861 to 1866 in her brother’s clothing store, for which she received compensation. Illinois passed another law in 1869 (the 1869 act) that entitled married women to their own earnings. The wife kept the money from her investments and her employment in her possession, managed it, and did not share it with her husband. The wife purchased furniture with this money, which was kept in the house she lived in with her husband. Seth Hanchett (the creditor) (defendant) was a creditor of the husband. The creditor obtained a writ of attachment on the basis of a debt owed to him by the husband, and the sheriff seized the furniture under the writ. The wife sued to recover possession of the furniture on the grounds that it was her separate property and not the husband’s property. The court agreed with the wife, and the creditor appealed.