From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moore v. Moore

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 13, 1872
47 N.Y. 467 (N.Y. 1872)

Summary

In Moore v. Moore, 47 N.Y. 467 (7 Am. Rep. 466), it was held that a wife might, in equity, maintain partition proceedings against her husband for her undivided share of property.

Summary of this case from Kuntz v. Kuntz

Opinion

Submitted February 5th, 1872

Decided February 13th, 1872

W.T.L. Sanders for appellant.

Miles Beach for respondent.


We have decided that an instrument in writing may be read in evidence, although there is not affixed to it an internal revenue stamp, as required by the terms of an act of congress. ( The People ex rel Barbour v. Gates, 43 N.Y., 40.) This went upon the principle that the federal government could not prescribe a rule of evidence for the State courts. We now hold that it is not in the constitutional power of congress to prescribe for the States a rule for the transfer of property within them. Without denying that it is within the power of taxation, conferred upon it, for Congress to lay an excise tax upon the business operations of communities, and to collect that tax by the means of stamps, to be placed upon the written instruments exchanged between contracting parties, and to enforce the observance of the law, to that end, by the imposition in it of penalties for its nonobservance, we are of the opinion that it is without that power to declare that a contract or conveyance between citizens of a State, affecting the title to real estate, is void, for the reason that such observance has been omitted. Apart, then, from any consideration of the sufficiency of the stamping and the canceling which took place before the referee, we think that these deeds were valid, and passed to the plaintiff, an estate in fee simple absolute, to one equal undivided half part of the premises in the deeds described.

The deeds being operative, on the execution of them the plaintiff, being a married woman, held this equal, undivided half part as her separate estate, or a part thereof. In relation to it, the plaintiff can maintain an action in the same manner as if she were a feme sole. (Code, § 114, Laws of 1862, chapter 172, p. 343, section 3.)

And this action being one in equity, she can, though a married woman, maintain it against the defendant, though her husband. ( Martin v. Martin, 1 Comstock, 473; 1 Daniels' Chy. Pr., 110; Story Eq., § 61; 2 Story Eq. Juris., § 1361; 1 id., § 646.) The judgment should be affirmed with costs.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Moore v. Moore

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 13, 1872
47 N.Y. 467 (N.Y. 1872)

In Moore v. Moore, 47 N.Y. 467 (7 Am. Rep. 466), it was held that a wife might, in equity, maintain partition proceedings against her husband for her undivided share of property.

Summary of this case from Kuntz v. Kuntz

In Moore v. Moore (47 N.Y. 467), a case arising under the Revenue Law of 1862, it was held that it is not in the constitutional power of Congress to provide for the State a rule for the transfer of property, and that a deed is valid to prove title though not stamped, and in People ex rel. Barbour v. Gates (43 N.Y. 40) it was held that Congress cannot make rules of evidence for State courts.

Summary of this case from People ex Rel. Brewing Co. v. Fromme
Case details for

Moore v. Moore

Case Details

Full title:MARGARET S. MOORE, Respondent, v . HENRY T. MOORE, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Feb 13, 1872

Citations

47 N.Y. 467 (N.Y. 1872)

Citing Cases

United States v. Fox

1. New York is a sovereign State (4 Cranch, 209; 3 Cow. 686), and the original owner of the land within her…

Thomas, Alias Morse, v. the State

The Act of Congress as to the rules of evidence applies only to Federal courts, and not the State courts. And…