The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1882-03-28
Terms of subscription {:
EEAD-NOTES OF DECISIONS


n :
january Term- \. -. ISs2.
CALVIN l. Ratinson. Appellant. vs. William B.
Barnett Appeliee-Duval COunty
VAN TALkENBURGH. J.;
The rgie i wei settled that parol evidence
: inadmissbe 10 cOnfFadict or vary the terms
Of a valid written instrument
, l. i 0iitn-ITes allowable 10 show contem
poraneous facts and circumstances attending the
negoiiaiion OF parties in making Contracts, as
such facts and circumstances may throw light
on the disputed contract itself.
8 B sued r as payee and endorser upon
prom.ssery note. At the maturity OF the note
the cashier OF B called upon for payment
r declined To pay il, alleging that his signature
ss eEiorser was a forgery. but 10 save the costs
OF protest he wrote over such alleged forged
Signature the words protest waived :" Held
That Oh the trial could give in evidence the
facts AMI ihe conversation had by him with
cashier ot 3 al the time those words were writ
ten as contemporaneOUs facts and circumstan-
ces. 10 rebuff tie presumption that by writing
those words he intended TO adopt the signature
IS hls own.
Judgment reversed. and new trial awarded
] c Marcy Counsel for Appellant; Cockrell
& Walker, Couuse! Tor Appellee.
Matilda Wade It A.. Appellants, vs. Michael J
Doyle, Appeilee-0range County.
RANDALL, C.J
/ Under lie laE Of this State permitting a
part, 70 plead and Jemur 10 the same pleading
al The same Tine, il l. proper % allow demurrer
70 b. nied on day subsequent TO the fling of
Plea II oar, II being lie intent Of the law 10 allow
issues oi aw and Of tact 10 exist al the same
tine.
: Lands are described in 4 declaration in
eiectmeni thus Lots one and two of range
tAlriy' cast township nineteen south. and
iFacu0na' section thirty and on demurrer that
lr description Was - vague that the lots could
no 5e Identified; il IS held that the language
imports hat los one and two are parts OF the
range township aud section named and the de-
scrp'lon : sufficiently ineligible and definite
JuGEmen reversed
{ X Foster and Hopkins & Walker. Counsel
ioF Appel- ants Fleming & Daniel, Counsel for
Appellee
Mary A Natiair and husband, Appellants, vs
Clas. = Card Administrator &c OF L. ID.
Alexander, Appellee--Duval County.
RAyDAII.. c. J.:
\ married woman NAV under the laws of
this Sare charge her separate property by
mortgage 70 secure a note signed BY herself and
her husband; and she NAV charge her separate
properly 10 secure any Indebtedness contracted
oy her Tor the benefit OF such property or estate
: decree II foreclosure suit that the de-
ienda1,s mortgagors, husband and wiiel paw
the aTaoun' due within a certain time and in de-
fault thereof, thai the mortgaged property be
sod, &c. : rot personal judgment or decree
against her Tor money
3 \ decree against = u0rtrapor for any de-
hciency oi money d1e after deducting the amount
realized on the sale. NAV be entered under the
genera PRAYER d the bill. See Equity Rule So
WHICH auihorZes such decree and execution
therefor
4 contract entered into by person so in
loxc4ied y that he i incapable OF transacting
business inielligently is vodabe BY such person
When a married woman has been induced
ny a-1Tice 10 purchase properly al a price far
hevon1 is value, and her husband Joined her in
giving pTomlssCry note and in executing a
mortgage on the same property and other of
her separate property, the husband being intox-
ieaiel and unfit 10 transact business al the time
of executing the securities, though the circum-
stances NAV have been such as to Justify a re-
session OF the contract by a decree in co uity,
yet the parties cannot by dnsscer set up such
maiiers as defence in a suit 10 foreclose the
mortgage
s. The remedy Of such mortgagors is to file a
bill or cross bill 10 rescind the entire agree
ment after rendering a recOnveyance and placing
The other party in stata quo.
Decree affirmed with directions that the court
before selling the other part thereof if the de-
iendanis so desire
Decree affirmed
C. P Cooper, for Appellants; Geo. Wheaton
Deans, for Appellee.
Bumer and wife. Appellants, VS.. PoIlak & Co.
Appelleee-Escambi county
RANDALL, c J.:
l. When a married woman carries or business
IN her own name, having property employed In
such business, and purchases goods upon her sole
credit Tor the purposes OF such business, her sep
Aaie property may be subjected in equity to the
payment Of claims for money due for such pur-
ehases
<. property, VIZ: furniture purchased by a
married woman at the request OF her husband.
and paid for by her husband with which they
Iarnish hotel where husband and wife live with
ther family, though the hotel business may be
s1perntended by her, and conducted in her name,
uoes not become separate property Of the wife
Unless by some act Of the husband indicating an
Intention that il shall be her separate property.
n0ch property is the property OF the husband
Ann Is liable for his debts.
Decree reversed
y T. Jones and J. E. Yonge, for Appellants
conn { Avery, for Appellees
1niiena L Smith, Appellant, VS. Hiram r Smith,
Appellee-Alachua county.
RANDALL, G. j.:
4 married woman cannot In this State main
- s0it IN her own name, but must sue by
80 80 Hlend, unless in cases where she has been
.sn.ed oy the Circuit Court to transact busi-
- u her own name As provided IN Chanfer
81, laws Of 1879.
a. Aa'hough II may be within the power OF
- court to remand the cause 10 the chaneellor
-. - aTeetions 20 allow an amendment by eub-
-Sunng next friend 10 prosecute the suif. vet
-. 80 upon looking 1t the pleadings and testi.
49, no case 10 made out entiilink the com
s:..Aat 70 decree, the decree Of the cours dis-
ne the hih wll be affirmed.
Derree affirmed.
ansssher q Hampton. Sor AuueIlant. T.v,0,
1Anehez, for Appelles. -