Case ID: miss_20/html/0490-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Clayton", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Henderson F. Robertson vs. Horace R. Ward and Wife.
    By the act of February, 1846, in relation to married women (Hutch. Code, 498), a married woman may be sued at law jointly with her husband, upon a note executed by the wife alone, since the passage of that act, for a horse purchased by her for the supply and use of her plantation.
    And a declaration upon such a note must allege the consideration of the note to have been for supplies to the plantation and slaves, or slaves alone ; and on the trial that must be proved.
    It seems that whatever is necessary to cultivate a plantation with, is included under the term “ supplies for a plantation,” used in this statute ; work horses or mules are therefore so included.
    On appeal from the circuit court of De Soto county; Hon. Hugh R. Miller, judge.
    Henderson F. Robertson sued Horace R. Ward and Eliza W. Ward his wife, on a note made by Eliza W. the wife, for seventy-five dollars, on the 2d of November, 1846 ; the declaration averred that the note was given for a certain bay ball-face mare, which she bought to use and work upon her farm in that county.
    There were also common counts in the declaration for the price due for the purchase of a horse for her plantation.
    Among other pleas, the defendants plead the coverture of Mrs. Ward; the plaintiff demurred, and the court sustained the demurrer to the declaration, and gave judgment for the defendants, from which the plaintiff appealed.
    
      H. W. Walter, for-appellant,
    relied on the law of 1846, Hutch. Code, 498, sec. 2, 3.
   Mr. Justice Clayton

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiff in' error, upon a promissory note executed by Mrs. Ward in November, 1S46, for the purchase of a horse, as is alleged, for the supply and use of her plantation. To this the defendants pleaded cov-erture, to which the plaintiff demurred. The court overruled the demurer to the plea, but applied it to the declaration, and sustained it as to 'that, and the case thence comes to this court.

The question is as to the liability of the defendants, upon this note, under the amendment of the married woman’s law, passed in February, 1846. Hutch. Code, 498.

The act declares, that all contracts for the purchase of supplies for the plantation and slaves, or for the slaves alone, owned by any married woman, made by the husband and wife, or either of them, either express or implied, shall be obligatory upon the husband and wife, and may be enforced against the proceeds and income of the separate property of such married woman.’? Thq next section gives jurisdiction to the courts of common law' upon such contracts, and authorizes the suit against husband arid wife jointly.

A plantation could scarcely be cultivated without work horses or mules, and they are no doubt to be included under the term “ supplies for a plantation,” used in the statute. It would be incumbent upon the plaintiff to make out the fact, that the horse was intended for the purpose, but when so made out, we cannot doubt that the case falls within the statute. Upon the demurrer we must consider the fact to have been conceded.

The judgment must be reversed for the error in this particular, since it could only have been rendered upon the assumption that the case was not within the statute.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for farther proceedings. ,.