The Carbon advocate. [volume] (Lehighton, Pa.) 1872-1924, 1877-07-14

making power OF married women VINO
desire to borrow money Under. the rules
Of the association as TO premiums, fines,
&c. 1t declares that married women
do not possess this power
Peter wolbach and Catherine his wife, versus
Lehigh BUILDING Association.-ErrOrt TO Com.
mon Pleas OF Northampton countv.-Mrs VOL
Dacn, who was owner Of lot Of land IN Easton,
executed jOintly with her husband a bond end
LnOI OItRage 20 tne ui,ulng AssOclatOn tor tlsOO,
she receiving therefor hut the sum OF $3.50. anu
subscribing at the same time for nine snnres of
the slocK OF the association, upon winch she
agreed 70 make certain monthly payments 8.
Having faiied III her pavmen y, suit was brO't
On the mUrtRGVe, ana to 1t Mrs. WOibacn put in
IN affidavit OF .ence, alleging that she had
oulv recetvRdslSOO as loan t2l8 OF which she
had pAlu OF
This aficavit the Court below ruled insuflci.
ent, hOlu'nR that there was no force III the UrO-
position OF the de endants below, to the effect
tnat married woman Couiu not MAKE q
contract with a buldlng assOci ,tiOn TO pay uues
aud lines, but was only iiaDle fOr the amount
l0aped Win interest. This rulng was q ssign-
ca as error, aud 50 the case has been OlouRut ~
the supreme Court. Plaintiffs ia error contend
mat the subscription by a marrleu woman 1Or
stock In ouidlng association, and her agree
ment to pay the cues and fines on The same Is q
contract on her part 1t IL, however, q contract
wLicl she cannot Oe he'd liable TO perform, be-
cause the law which locUids married woman
payment OF nece5sarles for her family, or for re.
pairs W Der real estate, trom giving a deed un.
Ing Judgment, unless II DO for purchase mon.
ey, wIl not aliOw her TO participlts III the Uus-
ness Ot DmlOing assOciatioD aud pay usurlOus
rates Ut interest as penalty for nOn-pelIOrn.
ance OF her contract The defendants III error
(tne Lehigh Building A AssOciAtIOnJ, Uu the other
nand, cOnIend that u marned woman under the
act OF lo4S, has n right 10 contract Tor tns I'M
prOvement OF her own separate estate. and may
execute mortgage for that purpose. TINS
having been done size Is liable tOr principal and
interest, and. by law OF Aprll IL. 1850 premiums
pAi1 10 building association are especially de-
clareu not 10 he usulous.
Judge Steriett. Of the Supreme Court. in de-
liverinR the opinion of that Court III May iCl
lowing. sald; -" Regarding the NOR, gage as q
security iOt the undertaking Of the VINE as a
shareholder anu ueDtOr OF the Building and
Loan Association, how lar has It The IlgnU TO en-
tOrce the sec .IriUy against her separate DI oler
u IL Will not lie queslINled that 1t may do so
10 the iuil extent VI her haUiltY, regal OF eqmG.
uDIe DuU beyond TINS u nas no right 60 go. Zoe
question then arises what was the extent OF me
Mlie's Indebtedness How lar was IL competent
Tor ner to Dind herself aud to what extent did
she make herself liable by ASSUMING To become
member OF the Association, and afterward "a
borrower Un the terms AMI Conditions aUUve in.
ulcateO Inc principles OF Jaw IN relation to
the power OF a ieme covert married wOmau) TO
make contracts aud incur liabilities must lur.
nlsh the answer to these iuq qJlTies." Juuge
SterretG tnen quotes opinions showing tnat a
married woman Is genersilY incapable Of con-
tracing deus aud iuculr.ng llaUlntes, Hud IN.
slunclng exceptions unuer the Hcu of l64S, tine
purpose OF Wnlcn was ~ secure the wife IN the
Use ana enjoyment Ot her separate properly, OI
arising by necessary Implication from ner right
Ine opinion says "tnere Is nothing IN IL (the Hcu
OF ls41J whlcn expressly removes ner comm on
Jaw Instability TO contract. unless II be in the
pfOVlslOn Mnlcn AUTHORIZES ner to purchase
necessaT1es FOR the use OF herself anu iunliy |
anu thus render her separate estate liable tOr
the CUM Ill Case 1t cAnnoS De collected from
ner husband out her separate estate caunUt
be Charged for necessaries furnished upon the
JOINT contract OF herself ana husOand II III
purchasing laho she glYes lugmenJ DOnu, or
u mortgage executed by herself TO secure The
purGhase money. the land alone is hound. WINE
sue herself lncdrs no personal liability. In sucn
cases lhe securities against tue land are upheld
anu enforced upon UqIiLIUl5 grOunus ~ pre- |
vent the gross INJUSTICE Of permitting hef To
WlthnOiu Ine pI1ce anu retuIu the lanu. When
II IL NECESSARY Tor the preseI yutlUn aud enjoy.
menJ ut her sep arate estate, she uIuy from une
very nature aud eAlgency of the case. contract
IOI It's ltpair and Improvement, Uutlher bUId !
given lOr suCh GebG Is vOid nor Is she liza JIe |
lOr money borrowed, or ueJG cOntracit q for |
the hVOweu purpose OF improving her Sc Jarate |
estate, ullesst Is shown tnat the money Or |
material has been SO applied" III inteTpre ing |
tue speell clauses relating to the deUJs GUf |
Whlcu sac may De held lIaUIe tine cases show |
tlaG they nave been so construed as 10 limit |
tnom stllctly 10 the purpose of protection and |
a,5y US 0G so ss 70 sAppd her contrast capn
contract engagements with the associuIiOI TO
wIlch we nave already referred a.e entirely |
OuIslue ui tine prime pies on w.Ich aDY OF the eX
SeptlOi III cases rest 10 hold otherwise, would |
De 10 gleatiy expand the contract capaclty and /
inability IL me vile and. iisleat OF beIn5 pro.
teclon tn her interests would UIuve TO . a |
snare. Ihe preSenG case Is an illustration Of |
the disastrous consequences TO wnIcu 1t would |
lead. IN less than three years after she became |
DER, we hnu the ASSOCIATION teeNIng TO |
enforce nRainst her separate estate II CAIN for |
over s2OJO lSzOUJ, the net COusluef allOd Tor |
winch was Lut little over half Ihat sum. From |
what has been said. we are iLstIii .d ln CONC uu
ing thht MRS. U zach wnS incapable of lnCur- |
llng the nRDIhiles she underioUk 10 assume 10y |
becoming member Ot the ASSOCIATION but 1t |
does not 'Ollow that she IL wholly exempt from |
all responslDIlty under the NOR gage. Having l
received. f0r the purpose OF luplUVIng der seq |
arate estate, tue SUN OF Ei3JU Wa Gu was apUl.ed
TO that OtJtC ner separate property Is naJle, |
GU the principles ABOVE statel Tor tins amOuuG |
and interest thereon, iess the payments made |
by hes.
1t may be claimed that inasmuch as the pre- |
NUNS, tines and interest on premiums are Oy !
tue act Of 1859 not deemed usurUus, she is also |
Liable for these Tnis woald De So pei haps II |
SHE were, sui geHerlS, capable OF acquiring !
membership and ass suming tuu obligations luc. |
oent taeirtO, Ii she was incapable, Us We hUld !
sne was, by reason Of cOVerture, sue could not /
De haOle. Tle provisions of the law uuder /
which The uetenu ,nt IN error tine building as |
soelaiOnl was incO pOrated, snow that such |
associations are not chartered for the purpose |
OF lOanIng money generally. 1t Is ms axe To !
suppose that tney have any such power The |
fourth section Of the act OF lo19 makes 1t their
duty TO Otter at stated dimes toe money in the |
treasury and loan 1t in open meeting 10 the !
stOcKhOlders who shall bid the highest preml
um, ana in declaring that premulns ANA fines |
shall not be deemed usurlOus, the ucG evidently
refers - those pad by members only. I, was
intended 10 regu.a ave the dealings between them
and NE ASSOCIATION and not between II and
those wlo ale IOt memoers OF lncapuDle OF nc.
qulrlug memIership.
The, judgment is, therefore, reversed and
pT0cedeHdO awarded
Inc effect Ot lhs decision ia to hold the nffida.
Wit Ut defence filed Uv Mr.. auu Mrs. WOlUaoh
good IN Jaw. TAe case wll now go before q
jury; when will, unuer instructions as 10 the
Jaw, render a verdict us to how much Is due TO
ana TO De pald 10 the BUILDING Association. 1t
should be nO,ed that the apparently eXhOrUItanU
clam Of The society for slJIO rs suujec. under
the Jaw to counter claim IUr Ietul naDle pre-.
miuIls and the value OF shares amounting prU.
baby an tins case 10 $3.50.
How can have a clear and brilli-
ant complexion Simply by using DR..
Bulls Blood Mixture and observing the
-