Bell v. Henderson Nat. Bank
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the CourtAnderson, C. J.
Section 8272 of the Code of 1923 provides that “the wife shall not, directly or indirectly, become the surety for the husband.” It must be observed that the only limitation put upon the right of the wife to dispose of her property is that she cannot bind it as a surety, directly or indirectly, for the debts of the husband. “She has the Tight to give her property away to her husband or anybody else, and to apply it, by her own hand or through her ‘husband, directly to the payment of his debts.’ ” Sample v. Guyer, 143 Ala. 613, 42 So. 106, 107. It has been generally held that a wife may pay her…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Elkins v. Bank of HenrySupreme Court of Alabama · 1912
- Hall v. GordonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1914
- Vinegar Bend Lumber Co. v. LeftwichSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
- Sample v. GuyerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1904
- Henderson v. BrunsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1904
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Garland v. First Nat. Bank of ScottsboroSupreme Court of Alabama · 1934
- Alabama Farm Bureau Credit Corporation v. HelmsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
- Continental Life Ins. Co. v. BrandtSupreme Court of Alabama · 1934
- Ex Parte LacySupreme Court of Alabama · 1936
- Daniel v. CummingsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1936
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.