Luning v. Brady
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, County of San Francisco. On the 11th of ¡November, A. d. 1854, the defendants Thomas Brady, and Josephine A. Brady, his wife, made and delivered to the plaintiff the following promissory note: “Twelve months after date, without grace, for value received, we jointly and severally promise to pay to ¡Nicholas Luning, or order, nine thousand dollars, with interest at two and one-half per cent, per month, payable…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, County of San Francisco. On the 11th of ¡November, A. d. 1854, the defendants Thomas Brady, and Josephine A. Brady, his wife, made and delivered to the plaintiff the following promissory note: “Twelve months after date, without grace, for value received, we jointly and severally promise to pay to ¡Nicholas Luning, or order, nine thousand dollars, with interest at two and one-half per cent, per month, payable monthly, in advance, till paid; and if default be made in payment of interest on any of the days when the same becomes…
1ConcurrenceTerry, C. J.
By the common law, a married woman can not hind herself by contract; and the statute of this State has not changed the law in this respect, except in certain particular cases. The joint and several promissory note of the defendant Brady, and his wife, was only obligatory as the individual contract of the husband. (Rowe v. Kohle, 4 Cal. Rep., 285.)
The discharge of Brady, by a decree under the Insolvent Act, from the payment of the note, did not release the lien of the mortgage executed to secure its payment. The discharge only operated to limit the recovery of the plaintiff to the proceeds of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rowe v. KohleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1854
3Cited by3 opinions
- Horn v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Vantilburg v. BlackMontana Supreme Court · 1880
- Prentis v. Richardson's EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1898