## Facts

- Amelia Rice married Isaac Rice in 1854 and received money from her parents at marriage, which she treated as her own and reinvested, including in land held in her name.
- The couple later moved to Illinois.
- After Illinois statutes recognizing married women’s separate property (1861) and earnings (1869), Amelia worked for pay in her brother’s clothing store and kept control of those earnings and investment proceeds.
- Amelia used her separate funds and earnings to purchase household furniture for the home she shared with Isaac.
- Seth Hanchett, a creditor of Isaac, obtained a writ of attachment against Isaac’s property and caused the sheriff to seize the household furniture as subject to levy.
- Amelia sued to recover the furniture, claiming it was her separate property and not liable for Isaac’s debts.
- The trial court found for Amelia and awarded her the furniture; Hanchett appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether household furniture purchased by a married woman with funds traceable to her separate property and earnings is her separate property, not subject to attachment for her husband’s debts.
2. Whether Illinois statutes protecting married women’s property and earnings apply to property acquired during a marriage that began before the statutes’ enactment.
3. Whether household goods located in and used in the marital home may be treated as the husband’s property absent proof they were purchased with his funds or placed in the wife’s name to hinder creditors.

## Decision

- The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the judgment for Amelia Rice.
- The court held the furniture was Amelia’s separate property and could not be seized to satisfy Isaac Rice’s debt.
- The court accepted evidence tracing the purchase funds to Amelia’s separate estate and earnings under the governing statutes.
- The court rejected the creditor’s reliance on the furniture’s location and use in the marital household as sufficient to treat it as the husband’s property.

## Legal Principles

- A creditor may reach only the debtor’s property; attachment cannot lawfully seize a nondebtor spouse’s separate property.
- Under Illinois married women’s property legislation, a married woman may hold and control separate property and the proceeds derived from it, even where the marriage predates the statute.
- Under Illinois married women’s earnings legislation, a married woman’s wages are her own and may be used to acquire personal property insulated from her husband’s creditors.
- Classification of disputed property turns on proof of ownership and source of purchase funds; possession or family use of goods in the marital home does not alone establish the husband’s title.
- Absent proof that property titled to or claimed by the wife is actually the husband’s or was arranged to defraud creditors, the husband’s creditors cannot levy on it.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed recovery of household furniture by the wife, holding that goods bought with funds traceable to her separate estate and statutory earnings remained her separate property and were not subject to attachment for her husband’s debts merely because they were kept and used in the marital home.


Hanchett v. Rice, 22 Ill. App. 442 (Ill. App. Ct. 1886)