Chittim v. Armour & Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Third Division; G. W. Hendricks, Judge; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. This appeal comes from judgments rendered against appellant in suits of Armour & Company and Sulzberger & Sons Company against her and Charles Lundy, which were consolidated and heard together below, the Sulzberger Company’s having been appealed from a judgment in the municipal court. ' The suits were for the balances due on account for merchandise and commodities furnished by…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Third Division; G. W. Hendricks, Judge; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. This appeal comes from judgments rendered against appellant in suits of Armour & Company and Sulzberger & Sons Company against her and Charles Lundy, which were consolidated and heard together below, the Sulzberger Company’s having been appealed from a judgment in the municipal court. ' The suits were for the balances due on account for merchandise and commodities furnished by said companies to Charles Lundy and upon the written guaranty , of appellant as follows: “For value received, of Armour…
1Opinion of the CourtKirby, J.
(after stating the facts). It is contended by appellant that the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict in her favor and we agree with this contention.
It is .not claimed that there was any consideration passing between the plaintiffs and appellant, inducing her to execute the guaranties, nor that she received any of the merchandise purchased by Lundy. Being a married woman she could bind herself only on such contracts as she was permitted by law to make.
In Goldsmith v. Moore, 108 Ark. 362, the court said: “It is well settled in this State that a married woman cannot bind herself as…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Goldsmith Bros. v. MooreSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
3Cited by1 opinion
- Cooper v. BurelSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917