sec. 984. But husband alone is liable if the wife acts under his actual coercion: Blakeslee v. Tyler, 55 Conn. 399, 11 Atl. 855.

Dakota.-"Neither husband or wife, as such, is answerable for the acts of the other": Dakota Comp. Laws 1887, sec. 2594.

Delaware has a separate property act, but nothing specially as to her torts: Rev. Code (1893), 600.

Florida:

Relation-Husband and Wife.-By statute wife is made liable for her own torts, but it is held that this does not relieve the husband from his common-law liability: Prentiss v. Paisley, 25 Fla. 927, 7 South. 56.

Georgia.-Every person shall be liable for torts committed by his wife: Georgia Code, sec. 3817.

Illinois. For all civil injuries committed by a married woman, damages may be recovered from her alone, and her husband is not responsible therefor, except in cases where he would be jointly responsible with her, if the marriage did not exist: Illinois Stats., c. 68, sec. 4.

Indiana.-"Husbands shall not be liable for the contracts or torts of their wives": Indiana Stats. (Rev. 1894), sec. 6925; McCabe v. Berge, 89 Ind. 225.

Iowa. For civil injuries married women are alone liable, except in cases where the husband would be jointly liable if not married: Iowa Code 1897, sec. 3156. Common-law presumption as to acts of the wife which are done under duress or compulsion is still recognized: State v. Kelly, 74 Iowa, 589, 38 N. W. 503.

Kansas.-Under statute giving married woman all rights and liabilities of a feme sole, she is held responsible for her words and her acts: Norris v. Corkill, 32 Kan. 409, 49 Am. Rep. 489, 4 Pac. 862. Maine. Since 1883 a husband is not liable for the torts of his wife in which he takes no part: Maine Rev. Stats., tit. 5, c. 61, sec. 4. Massachusetts.-Since Statutes of 1871, chapter 312, a husband cannot be held liable for a tort of this kind committed by his wife unless he aided, abetted, advised, or otherwise encouraged the act: Austin v. Cox, 118 Mass. 58; McCarthy v. De Bert, 120 Mass. 89. "Any married woman may sue and be sued in action of tort in the same manner as if she were sole, and her husband shall not be liable to pay the judgment against her, etc.": Stats. 1871, c. 312. Cited in Hill v. Duncan, 110 Mass. 238.

Massachusetts' Present Statutes.-"A married woman may sue and be sued in the same manner as if she were sole": Gen. Stats. 1882, c. 147, sec. 7. "A husband shall not be liable to pay any judgment that may be recovered against his wife, except as provided in sec

tion 11 (when married woman engages in business with recording fact): Gen. Stats. 1882, c. 147, sec. 9.

Michigan.-While the husband may be made a party in a suit for torts of the wife, executions issued upon judgments against them in such actions shall be satisfied from the property and effects of the wife only, and not from those of the husband: Michigan Stats. 1882, sec. 7714; Ricci v. Mueller, 41 Mich. 214, 2 N. W. 23. The husband is not a necessary party: Weber v. Weber, 47 Mich. 571, 11 N. W. 389; Burt v. McBain, 29 Mich. 262.

Minnesota.-Husband is not liable for torts of his wife: Laws of Minnesota 1897, p. 9, c. 10, sec. 6, amending Gen. Stats. 1894, sec. 5536.

Missouri still retains the common-law rule: Flesh v. Lindsay, 115 Mo. 1, 37 Am. St. Rep. 374, 21 S. W. 907; Nichols v. Nichols, 147 Mo. 387-407, 48 S. W. 947.

Montana.-Husband, as such, is not liable for the acts of his wife: Montana Code 1895; Civ. Code, sec. 218.

New York.-A husband is not liable in damages for his wife's wrongful or tortious acts, unless they were done by actual coercion or instigation of the husband: New York Code Civ. Proc., p. 2987. North Carolina.-Every husband living with his wife is jointly liable with her for all her torts, by statute: North Carolina Code 1883, sec. 1833. This has been considered to imply that he is not liable for her torts if he is not living with her: Roberts v. Lisenbee, 86 N. C. 136, 41 Am. Rep. 450.

North Dakota.-Neither husband nor wife, as such, is liable for acts of the other: North Dakota Rev. Code 1899, sec. 2770.

Ohio.-Neither husband nor wife, as such, is liable for the acts of the other: Ohio Rev. Stats. 1902, sec. 3115.

Oregon. All civil disabilities removed: Hill's Laws, 1355, sec. 2998.

Pennsylvania statute provides that wife may sue and be sued for her torts without joining her husband: Vocht v. Kuklence, 119 Pa. St. 365, 13 Atl. 199.

Rhode Island.-Husband is not liable for torts committed by his wife before or after marriage, unless he participates therein or coerces her thereto: R. I. Gen. Laws, c. 194, sec. 14.

Utah. For civil injuries committed by a married woman, damages can be recovered from her alone, and her husband shall not be liable except where he would be jointly liable with her if no marriage existed: Utah Rev. Stats. 1898, sec. 1204. She alone is liable: Culmer v. Wilson, 13 Utah, 129, 57 Am. St. Rep. 713, 44 Pac.

Vermont.-A married man is not liable for torts of his wife unless committed by his authority or direction: Vermont Stats. 1894, sec. 2648. Held, husband liable under statute unless by his authority: Story v. Downey, 62 Vt. 243, 20 Atl. 321. A married woman is liable for torts in management of her separate property: Russell v. Phelps, 73 Vt. 390, 50 Atl. 1101.

Washington. For all injuries committed by a married woman damages may be recovered from her alone, and her husband shall not be responsible therefor, except in cases where he would be jointly liable with her if the marriage did not exist: Ballinger's Code and Statutes of Washington of 1897, sec. 4506.

West Virginia.-Husband and wife must be joined in an action for tort unless the wife is living separate and apart from her hus band. Otherwise the common-law rule is still retained: West Virginia Code 1899, c. 66, sec. 13.

Wyoming recognizes the liability of the husband for torts of his wife, but provides that in case of a judgment against them execution must be levied on lands of the wife, if she have any: Wyoming Rev. Stats. 1899, sec. 2979.

The states not mentioned above have not passed specific statutes in respect to torts.

CHAPTER IV.

LIABILITY OF PERSONS ACTING IN CONCERTJOINT TORTS.

40. Joint tort-feasors-Term defined.

§ 41. Joint torts, how committed.

§ 42. Same continued-Joint wrongs, distinguished from concurrent independent acts.

43. Principles underlying joint liability.

§ 44. Acts joint or several, explained and distinguished.

8 45. Same continued-Conspiracy.

46. Same continued-When acts separate and without common intent.

§ 47.

Ratification or adoption-General principles.

§ 48. Same continued-Illustrative cases.

§ 49.

Joint liability when independent contract is made. 50. Joint liability for injury from falling party-wall. Liability of joint owners of animals.

§ 51.

§ 52. Same continued-Owners of dogs.

§ 53. Joint liability for maintenance of nuisance.

§ 54. Joint liability in slander and libel.

§ 55. Joint liability in malicious prosecution.

§ 56. Liability of municipalities or counties jointly maintaining bridge.

§ 57. Action for joint tort may be brought how.

58. Same continued-Separate action against each-Rules and

§ 59.

incidents.

Same The common law.

§ 60. Common-law rule further considered-Fundamental princi

ples.

§ 61. Same subject continued-The American rule.

§ 62.

Same continued-Effect of issuing execution.

§ 63.

Release of one joint tort-feasor-Partial satisfaction.

§ 64. Judgment and execution in action against all joint tortfeasors.

$ 40. Joint Tort-feasors-Term Defined. The term "joint tort-feasors" means that where two or more persons unite in the commission of some wrong, they

are each equally responsible therefor. There are, in fact, two ways in which a joint tort may be committed-one, where the tort-feasors act in concert, or with a common design; the other where the tortfeasors sustain a relation, such as principal and agent, or master and servant, in which relationships. both are considered equally liable for a wrong committed by the agent. The general principles of law governing the liability of joint tort-feasors apply to both classes. This chapter deals with the general principles of joint liability of parties, and especially with torts committed in concert, excepting the doctrine of contribution, which is the subject of a separate chapter. Torts by relation is also found in a separate chapter.1

§ 41. Joint Torts, How Committed. To make persons joint tort-feasors, they must actively participate in the act which causes the injury, or the tort must be committed by one sustaining such a relation as to make others liable. The parties responsible for a joint wrong may be connected therewith in various ways; their acts may be entirely in concert, or accompanied with unity of purpose as in conspiracy or design; one may plan, direct or command, encourage, advise, or assent, and the other may act or perform. Again, there may be such relations existing between parties that while they do not act in concert, nor by direction or command, yet their acts with reference to the injury are such a joint or contributory cause thereof that their acts are joint and several, rendering each or all jointly and severally liable. Illustrative of the latter position or relation are connecting carriers, contractor and owner, two persons who undertake a common task, each having separate and 1 See c. 5, post.