Jarman v. Wilkerson
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Error to the Morgan Circuit. Chancery. Case 80. A feme covert entitled to a separate estate executed a note as the surety of her son. Held that it ivas \pro tanto■ a charge upon her separate estate in the hands-of her trustee, which might he subjected by the: Chancellor.
Read the full summary
Error to the Morgan Circuit. Chancery. Case 80. A feme covert entitled to a separate estate executed a note as the surety of her son. Held that it ivas \pro tanto■ a charge upon her separate estate in the hands-of her trustee, which might he subjected by the: Chancellor. Where a feme conert, owner ofa separate estate, surety afoi0t her la’ permitted judgment tobe eaiered against her, wühout reeo'vevture”11 exeeution issued thereon upon -which there was property found.” separate13 estate might be subjeoted to its payment by the Chancellor.
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Marshall
How far the engagements of a feme covert for the payment of money not expressly charging or referring to her separate estate, should be regarded in equity as an appointment or charge upon such estate, has not, as we believe, been expressly decided in this Court.
The modern doctrine of the British Chancery seems to be, that as an incident to the power of separate enjoyment as recognised in equity, the feme has the power of charging her separate estate, (3 Maddock’s Chy. Rep.934; Ibid, 201,) but that without a charge on her part, either express or implied, it cannot be reached. In Hulme vs…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Deering v. BoyleSupreme Court of Kansas · 1871
- Major v. SymmesIndiana Supreme Court · 1862
- Burch v. BreckinridgeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1855
- Dobbin v. HubbardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1856
- Lillard v. TurnerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1855
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.