upon claim in West Virginia

1960The state is vitally concerned in maintaining that relationship and not in facilitating its disruption by authorizing personal injury actions between them — ‘another step to destroy the sacred relation of man and wife, and to open the door to law suits between them for every real and fancied wrong, — suits which the common law has refused on the ground of public policy.’ Bandfield v. Bandfield, 117 Mich. 80 , 75 N. W. 287 , 40 L.R.A. 757 .” Though there are some decisions to the contrary on this question the conclusion reached in the Poling case that, in the absence of statute permitting it, o

1960The state is vitally concerned in maintaining that relationship and not in facilitating its disruption by authorizing personal injury actions between them — ‘another step to destroy the sacred relation of man and wife, and to open the door to law suits between them for every real and fancied wrong, — suits which the common law has refused on the ground of public policy.’ Bandfield v. Bandfield, 117 Mich. 80 , 75 N. W. 287 , 40 L.R.A. 757 .” Though there are some decisions to the contrary on this question the conclusion reached in the Poling case that, in the absence of statute permitting it, o

1949Cas. 1915D, 70; Gilman v. Gilman, 78 N. H. 4, 95 A. 657 , L.R.A. 1916B, 908 , the conclusion reached in the Poling case that, in the absence of statute permitting it, one spouse can not during coverture maintain an action at law against the other upon a claim arising in tort, is in accord with the holdings of the courts of last resort in numerous other jurisdictions, Thompson v. Thompson, 218 U. S. 611 , 31 S. Ct. 111 , 54 L. ed. 1180, 30 L.

1949Cas. 1915D, 70; Gilman v. Gilman, 78 N. H. 4, 95 A. 657 , L.R.A. 1916B, 908 , the conclusion reached in the Poling case that, in the absence of statute permitting it, one spouse can not during coverture maintain an action at law against the other upon a claim arising in tort, is in accord with the holdings of the courts of last resort in numerous other jurisdictions, Thompson v. Thompson, 218 U. S. 611 , 31 S. Ct. 111 , 54 L. ed. 1180, 30 L.

1949Cas. 1915D, 70; Gilman v. Gilman, 78 N. H. 4, 95 A. 657 , L.R.A. 1916B, 908 , the conclusion reached in the Poling case that, in the absence of statute permitting it, one spouse can not during coverture maintain an action at law against the other upon a claim arising in tort, is in accord with the holdings of the courts of last resort in numerous other jurisdictions, Thompson v. Thompson, 218 U. S. 611 , 31 S. Ct. 111 , 54 L. ed. 1180, 30 L.

1947Chapman v. Chapman’s Trustee, 92 Va. 537 , 24 S. E. 225 ; 1 Lomax, Dig. c 2 §13, 14 (side page 101).” The contract between Gust D.

1947Chapman v. Chapman’s Trustee, 92 Va. 537 , 24 S. E. 225 ; 1 Lomax, Dig. c 2 §13, 14 (side page 101).” The contract between Gust D.

1921In that case we cited with approval Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Hawkes, 102 Va. 452 , holding that the law imposes no such obligation on railways to one injured by his own negligence, against which common prudence would have protected him, and that it was immaterial that he thought he was in a place of safety.

1916Va. 405 , that when the statutory mine foreman, as in this ease, is also clothed by the owner with authority to employ and discharge miners and assign them to their places to work in the mine, and he employs and assigns a miner to work in a dangerous place in the mine, without discharging the duty of the master of “apprising him of the danger and instructing him as to means of avoidance thereof, and such employee is injured or killed as a result of such action, the operator is liable, notwithstanding the statute makes it the duty of mine foremen to instruct the men working under them”; this up

1902This is upon principle found in Billingsley v. Menear, 44 W.

1900In Crislip v. Cain, 19 W.