Elliott v. Lawhead
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the District Court of Licking county. September 24, 1878, Lawhead commenced an action in the court of common pleas against Charlotte Elliot, a married woman, and Cyrus S. Gilbert, stating that there was due to him from her the sum of seventy-five dollars for services as her attorney, rendered by him at her request about her separate estate and property; that said employment for such services was made by her in reference to and upon the faith and credit of her…
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Licking county. September 24, 1878, Lawhead commenced an action in the court of common pleas against Charlotte Elliot, a married woman, and Cyrus S. Gilbert, stating that there was due to him from her the sum of seventy-five dollars for services as her attorney, rendered by him at her request about her separate estate and property; that said employment for such services was made by her in reference to and upon the faith and credit of her separate estate, which she thereby charged. It is alleged that her co-defendant, Cyrus S. Gilbert, has in his possession…
1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.
1. The contract alleged in the petition and found by the district court to exist, was purely of equitable cognizance.
It is the contract of a married woman for services rendered to her in the management of her separate estate, by which, as the court finds, she charged that estate with the payment of reasonable compensation for the services rendered.
It is not alleged that this contract was in writing, and the proof shows that it was not.
A married woman can charge her seperate estate by parol contract.
The claim, therefore, that such charge should be evidenced by written instrument is not well…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Maholm v. MarshallOhio Supreme Court · 1876
- Allison & Townsley v. PorterOhio Supreme Court · 1876