Wood v. Orford
California Supreme Court
The defendants were husband and wife. On the 4th of February, 1875, when the defendant, Mary J., was the wife of one Fogg, she gave the plaintiff the promissory note on which this action was brought.
Read the full summary
The defendants were husband and wife. On the 4th of February, 1875, when the defendant, Mary J., was the wife of one Fogg, she gave the plaintiff the promissory note on which this action was brought. She afterward, and before the commencement of this action, became the wife of defendant Robert J. The promissory note did not, on its face, express an intention on her part to charge her separate estate, nor was it alleged in the complaint that the consideration was obtained for the benefit of such estate, or that it aided in its protection or preservation. The Court below gave a joint judgment…
1Opinion of the Court
A married woman cannot bind herself by a promissory note unless it grew out of a transaction respecting her separate property.
That this note would be void at common law will not be disputed. Has the Code removed the disability of a married woman, except to a certain extent ? And that respecting her sep*413arate property and transactions respecting it? We think not. Let us analyze the provisions of the Code. Sec. 1556 Civil Code simply denominates the persons capable of contracting, among which are married women, and that she can make some lcinds of contracts is not disputed. And sec. 158 shows…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Jones v. CrosthwaiteSupreme Court of Iowa · 1864
- Kantrowitz v. PratherIndiana Supreme Court · 1869
- Emery v. LordMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
- Whitworth v. CarterMississippi Supreme Court · 1870
- Hodson v. DavisIndiana Supreme Court · 1873
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- CIT Corporation v. SandersonDistrict Court, D. Idaho · 1930
- Colonial & United States Mortgage Co. v. StevensNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1893
- C. I. T. Corp. v. SandersonDistrict Court, D. Idaho · 1931