Case ID: nc_79/html/0330-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Fairoloth, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

H. T. JEFFREES and another v. S. T. GREEN and wife.
    
      Married Women — Deed of Trust.
    
    Where a married woman purchased certain real estate taking title to herself, and borrowed money with which to pay the purchase money, and to defray necessary family expenses and for carrying on her farming operations on other lands, and to secure the sum borrowed executed with her husband a deed of trust on certain land of her separate estate ; It was held, that such deed of trust was valid.
    
      (Purvis v. Carstaphan, 73 N. C. 575; Pippen v. Wesson, 74 N. C. 437; Atkinson v. Richardson, Ib. 455, cited, distinguished and approved.)
    Controversy submitted without action under C. C. P., § 315, at Spring Term, 1878, of Warren Superior Court, before Seymour, J.
    
    The facts appear in the opinion. His Honor held that the deed of trust was valid, and the defendants appealed.
    
      Messrs. Merrimon, Fuller f Ashe, for plaintiffs.
    No counsel in this Court for defendants.
   Fairoloth, J.

The case is; this: The feme defendant purchased a house and lot and took title to herself, and borrowed money with which to pay the purchase price, and to defray necessary family expenses, and for “ carrying on her farming operations upon her several tracts of land,” and she and her husband conveyed, by deed and privy examination duly tak.en, one of her several tracts of land in trust to secure the. payment of said borrqwed money. Is the land thus: conveyed ImbleJor the debt ?

"We can' scarcely see any room for argumentation except ©n the theory that a feme covert can not sell or charge her separate estate for her own benefit, or the improvement of her own. property. This, would go much beyond the purpose of the liberal legislation of the State in favor of married women, and would be highly judicial to their material, interests.

The cases to which we were referred—Purvis v. Carstaphan, 73 N. C., 575; Pippen v. Wesson, 74 N. C., 437; and Atkinson v. Richardson, Ib. 455—were contracts for the benefit of the husband, or her estate was not charged. In the latter case there was. n.o express charge on the land, and it was sought to be charged by implication, but this was not allowed. It was there said that “ a married woman may purchase property for ready money, but not on credit ; and she may contract debts for the benefit of separate property which she, already owns, as for building a house on the premises,^ &c.

Let it be certified that there is no error, and let the sale proceed according to the agreement of the parties.

No error. Affirmed.