Skinner v. Anderson's Trustees

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, a woman who alleged desertion by her husband, initiated an action against the trustees of her mother to recover her share of the mother's estate, specifically legitim and dead's part. Shortly after the action commenced, the Plaintiff was placed in an asylum. The Defendants contended that the Plaintiff's husband, referred to as Husband A, was still alive and thus the Plaintiff had no title to sue without his concurrence, and that the Plaintiff's current spouse, Husband B, had no right to sue. The court found it proven that the Plaintiff was married to Husband A, who had left and not returned, and it was not proven that Husband A was deceased by a relevant date. Consequently, the court held that the Plaintiff's current spouse had no title to pursue the action and appointed a curator ad litem to the Plaintiff while she remained confined.

Later, Husband A returned and was notified of the action but did not appear, and the Plaintiff was no longer confined. The Defendants moved to dismiss the action on the basis that the Plaintiff's current spouse had no right to sue and that Husband A had not joined as a party. The Lord Ordinary refused to appoint a curator ad litem, sustained the Defendants’ plea, dismissed the action, and awarded expenses to the Defendants.

The Plaintiff reclaimed, arguing for the appointment of a curator ad litem or alternatively that the action be suspended to enable her to seek protection under the Conjugal Rights Act 1861.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff's current spouse had legal title to pursue the action for her share of the estate without the concurrence of her lawful husband (Husband A).
2. Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to have a curator ad litem appointed to enable her to proceed with the action despite her confinement and the absence of her lawful husband.
3. Whether the action should be suspended to allow the Plaintiff to obtain an order under the Conjugal Rights Act 1861 for protection, thereby vesting her with a good title to sue.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• A curator ad litem should be appointed to enable the Plaintiff to continue the action despite her confinement and the absence or non-participation of her lawful husband.
• Alternatively, the action should be suspended to allow the Plaintiff to take advantage of the Conjugal Rights Act 1861, which provides protection for married women against deserting husbands, potentially strengthening her title to sue.

Respondents' Arguments

• The Plaintiff's current spouse had no legal right to sue as he was not the lawful husband.
• The lawful husband was still alive and had not concurred in the action, which barred the Plaintiff from suing independently.
• The action should be dismissed with expenses in favor of the Defendants.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Conjugal Rights Act 1861	Provides married women the right to seek protection against deserting husbands, potentially vesting them with a good title to sue independently.	The court held that suspension of the action to enable the Plaintiff to obtain an order under this Act would vest her with the necessary title to sue, resolving the procedural difficulties.
Note of Lord Moncrieff (referred)	Discusses conditions under which a curator ad litem should be appointed and the necessity of a deserted wife proving desertion without reasonable excuse to obtain protection under the Act.	The Lord Ordinary initially relied on this view to refuse appointment of a curator ad litem, but the appellate court disagreed, emphasizing the Plaintiff's right to pursue the claim if properly protected.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the Plaintiff's legal capacity to sue given the presence of her lawful husband and the absence of his concurrence. It recognized that the current spouse had no title to sue and that the lawful husband had not appeared. However, the court emphasized that the Plaintiff's claim, if well founded, should not be dismissed solely due to procedural technicalities related to her husband's absence or non-participation.

The court reasoned that the most practical and just solution was to suspend the current action to allow the Plaintiff to apply for protection under section 1 of the Conjugal Rights Act 1861. Obtaining such an order would vest the claim directly in the Plaintiff, giving her a valid title to sue. This approach was preferred as it was neither expensive nor overly time-consuming and would resolve the legal impediments to proceeding.

The court explicitly stated that if the Plaintiff succeeded in obtaining the protective order, she would have a good title and instance to sue in the present action. This approach balanced procedural fairness with substantive rights, allowing the Plaintiff to establish her claim under the protection of the statute.

Holding and Implications

The court ordered the action to be superseded to enable the Plaintiff to apply for an order under the Conjugal Rights Act 1861. This order would vest the claim in her person and provide her with a valid title to sue.

The direct effect of this decision is to allow the Plaintiff an opportunity to strengthen her legal standing by obtaining statutory protection before proceeding with the claim. No new legal precedent was established beyond clarifying the procedural approach in such circumstances.