Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1879-04-29

ppSaiS upVh sno sN1SS
State relating to the separate
tnarried woman. As there have
Init few decisions rendered upon this
t4ttnent Of our laws, which is more or less
lnplicated by innovations and conflicts with
old common law doctrines, says the
heeling Register, this decision will attract
The nstention of the business community gen
orally, and especially the legal profession,
inssnauoh as it covers nearly every phase OF
the Law that is likely to arise.
The opinion was delivered by Judge Green
and covers $50 pages of manuscript. The
case comes up from the Circuit Court of
Fsyette county and is styled, William Rad
ford and Henry Light, appellants, Us, Martha
A. and James Carwile, appellees. The
nmo unit involved is only about one hundred
dollars, but the case serves as we'll for the
legal principles as if the amount were hum
dred thousand.
That the bearings of the decision may be
fully understood, we give brief statement
of the facts upon which the suit was founded,
as follows:
" illiam Radford purchased of Geo. q.
johnson and Sarah A, his wife, 20 acres Of
land in Fayette county, West Virginia, in
consideration of - dollars. BE afterward
sold the same land to the appellees, or as he
alleges to Martha A. Carwile for sl60, of
which she paid s69, and she and her husband
executed their joint and several bond for the
balance of 500. At tho time of making
the sale to the appellees Radford had not yet
obtained deed from his vendor johnson, and
to save expenses of two deeds johnson ex>
ecuted "a deed directly to Martha A. Carwile.
Rsdford alleges that the bond was accepted
on the credit of said separate estate of Martha
created by the said deed to her, and charges
that a. that time her husband was bankrupt
and insolvent, aud he therefore sought to
subject it, as the separate estate of the said
Martha, to the payment of the joint and sew
eral bond of the husband and wife.
Martha denied in her answer that said
bond any part OF it was to be charged to
her separate estate, or that there was any
agreement of any nature whatsoever to that
effect before or after she endorsed the bond.
Henry Light, who was assignee of the
bond, was made-a party complainant, and the
court below dismissed the bill as to the said
Martha, being of opinion that tho debt was
not charge upon her separate estate. Upon
this state of facts an appeal and supersedeas
were allowed.
The decision of the Court of Appeals, the
syllabus Of which we give below, settles two
important points, viz: that the separate per.
sona1 estate, including the rents and profits
of the real estate of married woman, is
liable for her debts incurred during cover
ture, upon any contract or transaction out of
which debt would have arisen if she were
. tense sole.
And secondly ", that such liability does not
extend to her separate real estate, and tho
common law disability to mako dny contract
OF incur any debt during her coverture which
will in any manner effect or change the corpus
of her real estate, is declared to be still in
force. Following, NC give the full syllabus:
l. A married woman rs to property settled to
her separate use is to he regarded a }tns sole,
and has right to dispose of all her separate
personal estate and the rents and profits of Der
real estate accruing during the c0veriure, as if
she were Ctme sole; unless hor power of alien
alton is restrained by the instrument creating
3. such restraint upon her power of alienation
will not be implied from her being authorized
TO dispose of the property in specified manner.
Such restraint must be either expressed so
clearly indicated as to be equivalent TO
press restraint
This jus di,ponsndi is an incident to the
ownership of separate estate. and it can only
lie taken away or limited by express words or
by an intent so clear as TO be the equivalent of
express words.
4. The liability of tho separate estate of q
married woman to the payment of all debts in
cnrred during coverture IS also an incident to
ton. can only be taken away by express words
or by an intent so clear as to he tho equivalent
s. But these incidents. liability to the. pay
Ancnt of her debts and her Jus dtsp0nendi. extend
property and the rents and profits of her sep
arate real estate accruing during the contin-
nance of the coverture.
8. The corpus of her separate real estate is in
no manner affected by the equitable doctrine of
separate estate which is devised to prevent
the acquisition by the husband of his marital
rights to all her personal property, and the
rents and profits of her real property during the
Z. The common law eTectualy protected tho
corpus of her real estate against her husbands
control and against his debts. And her common
law disability TO make any contract or incur any
debt during her coverture which will in any
property or not, is still in such force. The CORFU,
nf her real estate OILY be affected or changed
by the vendors lien whom it has been reserved,
= or by a conveyance or specific lien created by
deed, in which her husband has united with her.
and which she executed after prisy cxanina-
ton.
s. The debts of a married woman for which
herscparate estate is liable such as arise
out of any transaction out of which debt
would have arisen if she fsn1s sols, except
that her separate estate is not bound by a bond
or covenant under seal on no consideration
Such bond or covenant being void at law and
she not being estopped from showing in court
of equity that it was bond OH no considera-
ton.
8. The consideration which will support the
debt or contract so to make her separate
tate liable need not enure to her own benefit or
that of her separate estate. but it may ennre to
the benefit of her husband any third party.
or may be that it is mere prejudice to the other
contracting partisan short, it NAV be for any
consideration which would support the contract
If she were a ftme sole.