Leahy v. Leahy
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 12 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL PROM JEPPERSON CIRCUIT COURT, CHANCERY DIVISION. 1. At common law the note by the husband to the wife was void. (Ellsworth v. Hopkins, 58 Vt., 705.) 2. The feme sole statute does not change the common law to the extent of allowing husband and wife to give notes to each other and sue each other upon them.
Read the full summary
Case 12 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL PROM JEPPERSON CIRCUIT COURT, CHANCERY DIVISION. 1. At common law the note by the husband to the wife was void. (Ellsworth v. Hopkins, 58 Vt., 705.) 2. The feme sole statute does not change the common law to the extent of allowing husband and wife to give notes to each other and sue each other upon them. (L. & N. R. Co. v. Alexander, 27 S. W. Rep., 981; Kalfus v. Kalfus, 92 Ky., 542; Lord v. Parker, 3 Allen (Mass.); Barnett v. Harshberger, 105 Ind., 414; Artman v. Ferguson, 73 Mich., 146; Small v. Small, 129 Pa. St., 366; Turner v. Nye, 7 Allen (Mass.), 176;…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HAZELRIGG
delivered tiie opinion op the court.
The appellee is the wife of the appellant, and is seeking to enforce the collection of a note executed to her in 1876 by her husband for the sum of $2,500, to secure which he executed a mortgage on a house and lot in Louisville.
It appears from the petition that the wife was empowered to trade as a feme sole at the time of the transaction, but whether she in fact owned any estate, separate or otherwise, is not alleged, nor does it appear that she in fact furnished the husband any money or other thing of value in consideration of which the note…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Tucker v. FennoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
- Bohannon v. TravisCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1893
- Kalfus v. KalfusCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1892
3Cited by1 opinion
- Metzler v. MetzlerPassaic County Circuit Court, N.J. · 1930