Vance v. Wells & Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
Weít of erior to the Circuit Co’uut of Russell county. Assumpsit by Wells & Co.- against Mrs. Vance, on a promissory note. Plea, coverture. Replication, that since the death of the husband, the defendant promised to pay. The defendant demurred to this replication, but the court oveiruled the demurrer, and gave judgment for the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Weít of erior to the Circuit Co’uut of Russell county. Assumpsit by Wells & Co.- against Mrs. Vance, on a promissory note. Plea, coverture. Replication, that since the death of the husband, the defendant promised to pay. The defendant demurred to this replication, but the court oveiruled the demurrer, and gave judgment for the plaintiff. This is now assigned-as error.- cited 1 Strange,. 94; 1- Shower, 188; 2 B. & A. 811; 8 Term, 545; 1 Bailey, 184; Ruger v. Lesporles, ex-r, 1 Dudley. 188; 1 Com. on Con. 162; Gould’s Plead. 453, 567.
1Opinion of the CourtGoldthwaite, J.
A married woman, in general, can-
not be a party to a promissory note or bill of exchange, so as to charge herself to liability in a court of law. [Chitty on Bills-, 24.] Indeed, it has been held, that during, coverture, she is not capable to contract, although separated from her husband. [Marshall v. Rutter, 8 Term, 545.] In the case of Lee v. Muggeridge, [5 Taunt. 37,]. where a feme was under a moral obligation to pay' a bond executed by her when covert, and she, after the death of her husband, promised to pay it, her executors were held liable on this subsequent promise. But here, there is…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Jones v. CrosthwaiteSupreme Court of Iowa · 1864
- Howard v. SimpkinsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1883
- Grimball v. MastinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
- Union National Bank v. HartwellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1887
- Dobbin v. HubbardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1856
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.