recognizing that the Married Women Acts of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries “gave wives the rights to own, acquire and dispose of property; to contract; and, to sue in respect to their property and contracts. Most importantly, many of the statutes specifically abolished the doctrine of the oneness of husband and wife.”
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that the Married Women Acts of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries “gave wives the rights to own, acquire and dispose of property; to contract; and, to sue in respect to their property and contracts. Most importantly, many of the statutes specifically abolished the doctrine of the oneness of husband and wife.”
- holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to deny one spouse a greater share of the estate where the other spouse had committed adultery and had a higher income
- negligence action to recover for personal injuries stemming from traffic accident
- rejecting view that interspousal immunity promotes domestic tranquility
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MAUZY, Justice,
concurring.
Although I concur whole-heartedly in the opinion of the court, I am compelled to voice my outrage at the recent action of our State Board of Insurance. With its opinion today, the court has rid Texas common-law of an archaic doctrine. Yet, the State Board of Insurance has now incorporated this same senseless doctrine into contract law. It recently prescribed a standard auto policy endorsement that expressly excludes liability coverage for intrafamily suits. 12 TEX.REG. 1126 (1987) (Form 675 adopted as part of amendments to Rules and Rates Governing the Insuring of Automobiles and Standard Endorsements). The Board’s action cannot have any rational justification; and it does not in any way serve the interests of the people of Texas.