Case ID: nc_52/html/0269-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Manly, J. Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WILLIAM FELTON, Adm'r v. MARY C. REID.
    Where a feme covert, having a separate estate, but living with her husband, contracted debts, without charging them, specifically, on her estate, and without the concurrence of her trustee, and after her husband’s death, promised, without any consideration, to pay such debts, it was Held that such promise was void.
    Where one of two partners of a firm retires from it, and assigns all his interterest in the store accounts to the other, and the latter afterwards dies, it was Held that actions to recover such debts, should be in the name of the surviving partner, and not in that of the personal representative of the deceased one, to whom they had been assigned.
    Tms was an action of assumpsit, tried before Saunders, J., at Spring Term, 1859, of Perquimons Superior Court.
    The following case agreed was submitted to the Court:
    The intestate of the plaintiff and one Ball, were in co-partnership in trade, up to the 13tli of November, 1855. During the years 1851 and 1855, an account was contracted by the defendant with the firm. On the 13th of November, 1855, the partnership of Long and Ball was dissolved, and Ball, for value, conveyed and assigned all bis interest in the goods on hand and the notes, bonds and accounts of the firm to Long, the intestate of the plaintiff. Amongst the accounts so assigned, was that against the defendant. Long continued the business, and the defendant traded with him until his death, which happened in September, 1856.
    During the years 1851 and 1855, the defendant was a feme covert and lived with her husband, but had separate property in the hands of a trustee, and it was in evidence, that she promised to pay these bills lierself, after they were conti’acted. In the year 1856, after the death of her husband, she wrote to Long a note, the material part of which is as follows:
    “Mr. Long. At your convenience, some time soon, please make out my last year’s account and send it up to me ; I want too see how we stand. I shall pay you $50, as soon as I can get it from --, and by the last of the year, if I live. I will ' settle up all I may, at that time, owe you. Be assured, my dear sir, you shall never lose one cent by me.”
    The whole amount of the account against the defendant for the years 1854 and 1855, was $297,77, and for 1856, was $143,41. Upon this, was a payment, made to the present plaintiff, of $200,37, on the 14th day of April, 1857. The defendant made one of these payments by an agent, and directed him to tell the plaintiff to credit her account with the amount, and not her husband’s. The plaintiff applied this payment to her account of 1854 and 1855 ; this payment was larger than her account of 1856. It was also shown, that her husband had an account with the plaintiff’s intestate, which was produced and identified on trial, and shown to be still unpaid.
    Long died in September, 1856, and the plaintiff, his administrator, carried on the store for a while. The defendant, after Long’s death, in the latter part of the year 1856, wrote to one Ferrell, a cleric in the store, as follows: “Mr. Ferrell, say to Mr. Felton, when I can see Mr.-, at February Court, to settle with him for the bond of his wards, I shall be able to pay him near $200 on my account.”
    Upon this state of the facts, his Honor directed a verdict to be entered for the plaintiff, for the sum of $164,07, the balance due, subject to the opinion of the Court, as to whether the action could be maintained. His Honor afterwards set aside the verdict, and directed the plaintiff to be nonsuited, upon the ground, that as the defendant was a feme covert, when the accounts, in 1854 and 1855, were contracted, no action could be brought against her, individually, notwithstanding the death of her husband before action brought, and the promise she made, in the note to Long, after her husband’s death; and further, upon the ground, that the plaintiff could not claim, in this suit, for the partnership debt of Long and Ball. From this decision, the plaintiff appealed to this Court.
    Winston, Jr., and Mines, for the plaintiff.
    
      Jordan, for the defendant.
   Manly, J.

The judgment of the Court below, is warranted by either one of the grounds, upon which it is placed in that Court.

The account for goods, which the feme covert ran up in 1854 and 1855, she was not bound to pay, either in law or equity. An original obligation, at law, we suppose, is not alleged; and in equity, by reason of her separate estate, we have decided, at this term, she is not bound.

The subject was considered in the case of Draper, Knox and Co. v. Jordan, in Equity at this term, and the general principles there is established, that a feme covert, having a separate estate, is not liable, in equity, through such estate, to her debts and engagements, unless these be charged specifically upon the separate estate, with the concurrence of the trustee.

Being bound, therefore, neither in law nor equity, to pay this account, it will follow that her promises, made after discoverture, are not supported by any sufficient consideration, and will not sustain the action. The insufficiency of such consideration is well settled; see Hatchell v. Odom, 2 Dev. and Bat. 302, and cases there cited.

The judgment of the Court is sustained by the other ground also. The action ought to have been in the name of the surviving partner, and not in the name of the representative of the assignee-. There is no error.

Per Curiam,

Judgment affirmed.