Beard v. Dedolph
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Waupaca County. Action upon a promisory note, dated September 21, 1867, executed by tbe defendants and payable to tbe order of S. P., in one year after date.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Waupaca County. Action upon a promisory note, dated September 21, 1867, executed by tbe defendants and payable to tbe order of S. P., in one year after date. Tbe payee, immediately upon tbe delivery of tbe note, transferred it to bis wife, without formal in-dorsement, in payment for money loaned by ber to bim out of ber separate estate. ' Tbe wife retained tbe note until after its maturity and then transferred it to tbe plaintiff, and, before suit brought, it was indorsed by both husband and wife. Tbe answer admits tbe execution and delivery of tbe note;…
1Opinion of the CourtDixoN, C. J.
The case of Putnam v. Bicknell, 18 Wis., 333, was decided upon the law as it stood prior to the passage of the married woman’s act, and is undoubtedly a correct statement *140of that law, and of the rights of the wife in equity, which was all that was then required. That ease necessarily decided that the rule or principle of equity jurisprudence involved in it, and as the same existed before passage of the act, was not abrogated or affected by the act. This has been so decided in New York, where the language of the statute is the same, Lockwood v. Cullin, 4 Robertson, 129, 134 and 135. The case…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Commonwealth v. MagowanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1858
- Putnam v. BicknellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1864
- Kluender v. LynchNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
3Cited by35 opinions
- Rice, Stix & Co. v. SallySupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Wilson v. NoonanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1874
- Tunno v. RobertSupreme Court of Florida · 1878
- Proctor v. ColeIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- Davis v. SittigTexas Supreme Court · 1886
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.