Legal Opinion

Red River Nat. Bank v. Ferguson.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided January 18, 1917No. 1664PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLew, J.

(after stating the facts as above). The note sued upon is, so the trial court held, in virtue of the facts, the note alone of the husband in legal effect, and the wife is not bound by it. And the proposition maintained -by the appellant is that a married woman, under the present statute, can execute and is legally bound by a promissory note signed by her jointly with her husband.

Under the common law a married woman is not bound by a promissory note executed by her jointly with her-'husband. It is the note alone of the husband. And it is the ruling of the court in this state that article 4624…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United States v. Union Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
  2. Aldridge v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1844
  3. Rhodes v. GibbsTexas Supreme Court · 1873
  4. Thurmond v. TrammellTexas Supreme Court · 1866

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Red River National Bank v. FergusonTexas Supreme Court · 1918
  2. Union Trust Co. v. GrosmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
  3. Farracy v. PerryCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1928
  4. Schenck v. Foster Building & Realty Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1919
  5. Borchers v. W.S. FlyTexas Supreme Court · 1924

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API