Smith v. Spaulding

Defendant in error, a married woman, signed the note in controversy in order to obtain an extension on the past due indebtedness of her husband to the John D. Zernitz Company. In order to secure said note she at the same time, and as part of the same transaction, executed a mort-. gage on certain real estate, her separate property, in Erank*340lin county, in which mortgage her husband joined. She also signed the following property statement:

“February 6, 1886.

“For the purpose of securing an extension of time on a certain book account of $325.95, aud now due the John D. Zernitz Company, of Chicago,…